Key takeaways:
- President Trump notified Congress that hostilities with Iran ended on April 7, 2026, citing a ceasefire.
- The War Powers Resolution requires the president to end military action within 60 days unless Congress authorizes an extension; the deadline passed on Friday.
- Legal experts and some lawmakers argue that ongoing U.S. military actions, such as a naval blockade, constitute continued hostilities despite the ceasefire.
President Donald Trump informed congressional leaders on Friday that hostilities between U.S. forces and Iran have “terminated,” addressing a critical 60-day deadline under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. In letters to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley, Trump stated, “There has been no exchange of fire between the United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026. The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026 have terminated.”
The conflict began on February 28, 2026, when U.S. forces, alongside Israel, launched strikes on Iranian targets, sparking a broader regional confrontation. Since then, Iran has retaliated, disrupting global energy markets and prompting debate in a Republican-controlled Congress over its constitutional role in authorizing military action.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and end hostilities within 60 days unless Congress approves an extension. The 60-day clock, triggered by Trump’s notification on March 2, reached its deadline on Friday, intensifying tensions in Washington.
The Trump administration argues that a ceasefire brokered in early April effectively ended active hostilities, pausing the legal countdown. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”
However, some lawmakers and legal experts dispute this interpretation. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said the statute likely does not support pausing the clock during a ceasefire, calling it “a really important legal question for the administration.” Georgetown Law professor David Super described the administration’s argument as “absurd,” noting that the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports constitutes an act of war and thus continues hostilities under the law.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, told TPM that the War Powers Resolution’s definition of hostilities includes confrontations without active firing, such as the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf. “To the extent a ceasefire could entail an end to hostilities, it might. But that’s not the case here,” Finucane said.
Despite the ceasefire, the administration maintains a significant military presence in the region, with over 50,000 U.S. service members in the Middle East. Trump acknowledged ongoing threats from Iran, stating that the Department of War continues to adjust force posture to address Iranian and proxy threats and protect U.S. interests and allies.
The administration has also threatened to resume strikes imminently. Hegseth warned that the military is “locked and loaded” and ready to act “at the push of a button.”
Congress has historically struggled to enforce the War Powers Resolution. Previous administrations, including those of Presidents Obama and Clinton, have interpreted the law in ways that allowed military operations to continue beyond the 60-day limit. Trump himself vetoed a bipartisan resolution in 2019 aimed at ending U.S. involvement in Yemen.
Some Republicans are shifting their stance on the Iran conflict. Senator Susan Collins voted with Democrats and Senator Rand Paul on a measure to end the war, citing the War Powers Act’s clear 60-day deadline as a requirement, not a suggestion. House Speaker Mike Johnson stated that the U.S. is “not at war” with Iran and expressed reluctance to interfere with ongoing peace negotiations.
The scale of the conflict with Iran is notable. Finucane described it as “the most significant unilateral use of military force by the White House since the Korean intervention,” underscoring the legal and constitutional challenges it presents.
As the administration asserts that hostilities have ended, legal experts and some lawmakers remain skeptical, highlighting unresolved questions about the war’s legality and the limits of presidential authority under the War Powers Resolution.





Be First to Comment