The Trump administration argues the war in Iran has effectively ended due to a ceasefire that began in early April, a position that could allow the White House to avoid seeking congressional approval.
The claim builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told the Senate the ceasefire had paused the conflict. Under that view, the administration has not triggered the requirement under a 1973 law to seek approval for military action lasting beyond 60 days, reports AP/UNB.
A senior official, speaking anonymously, said “hostilities that began on Feb 28 have terminated,” noting there has been no exchange of fire since the ceasefire began on April 7.
Despite the truce being extended, Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz, while the US Navy maintains a blockade to restrict Iranian oil shipments.
Under the War Powers Resolution, President Donald Trump faced a Friday deadline to obtain congressional approval or end hostilities, although the law allows a 30-day extension.
Democrats have pressed for formal approval, and the 60-day mark is seen as a key point for some Republicans who backed initial action but want congressional oversight for any prolonged conflict.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Senator Susan Collins, who supported a measure to end military action without congressional approval.
She said any further action must have clear objectives and a defined strategy to end the conflict.
Former National Security Council official Richard Goldberg suggested shifting to a new mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz under a self-defence framework, while retaining the option for offensive action.
Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee the administration believes the 60-day clock is paused during the ceasefire, but Senator Tim Kaine rejected the argument, calling it unprecedented and lacking legal basis.
Legal experts also criticised the interpretation, saying the War Powers Resolution does not allow the timeline to be paused or reset.
Katherine Yon Ebright of the Brennan Center said the claim represents a significant stretch of legal interpretation, adding lawmakers should challenge it.
She said past administrations have argued limited military actions did not fall under the law, but the scale of the Iran conflict makes that argument unlikely to hold.
