The Trump administration is contending that U.S. hostilities with Iran effectively ended when a ceasefire took effect in early April, a position that could allow the White House to avoid immediately seeking congressional authorization for continued military operations.
The argument expands on remarks made Thursday by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Hegseth said the ceasefire had effectively paused the conflict, suggesting that the statutory timeline requiring congressional approval for prolonged military engagement had been suspended.
According to a senior administration official speaking anonymously to discuss internal legal reasoning, the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 were considered terminated for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution. The official said there had been no direct military exchanges between U.S. and Iranian forces since the ceasefire began on April 7.
Despite the halt in direct combat, tensions in the region remain unresolved. Iran continues to control access through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically vital shipping route, while the U.S. Navy is reportedly maintaining operations aimed at restricting Iranian oil exports.
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, presidents are generally required to obtain congressional authorization for military engagements lasting more than 60 days, with a possible additional 30-day extension. Without approval, military operations are expected to cease once the deadline passes.
Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns over whether the administration can legally continue military involvement without congressional consent. Democrats have pressed for a formal authorization vote, while some Republicans who supported limited military action have also emphasized the need for legislative oversight if the conflict extends further.
Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, supported a measure on Thursday seeking to end military action in Iran absent congressional approval. She said the legal deadline should be treated as binding and added that any further military campaign must include a clearly defined mission, achievable objectives, and a credible plan to end the conflict.
Outside government, some former officials have proposed alternative legal and strategic approaches. Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he advised the administration to shift to a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and protecting maritime navigation. He argued that such an operation could be framed primarily as self-defense while preserving the option of offensive action if necessary.
Legal scholars, however, strongly disputed the administration’s interpretation. Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said Hegseth had presented an unprecedented legal argument lacking clear statutory support.
Katherine Yon Ebright, a war powers specialist at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the War Powers Resolution contains no provision allowing the 60-day deadline to be paused or reset due to a ceasefire. She described the administration’s position as a significant expansion of past executive branch efforts to interpret the law broadly.
Previous administrations have sometimes argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not meet the threshold requiring War Powers compliance. However, critics say the scale and nature of the Iran conflict make such reasoning difficult to apply in this case.
The dispute sets the stage for a broader constitutional confrontation over presidential war-making authority and Congress’s role in authorizing sustained military action.
