WASHINGTON — The White House asserted Thursday that the ongoing U.S. military involvement in Iran has effectively 'terminated' for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, arguing that a ceasefire ordered by President Donald Trump on April 7 halted the 60-day clock that Congress believes expires this Friday. This claim, which could allow the administration to sidestep immediate congressional authorization for continued operations, drew sharp rebukes from Democrats and doubts from some Republicans during a Senate hearing on the Pentagon's budget.
According to a White House official speaking to reporters, the hostilities with Iran 'have terminated' under the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days — or 90 days if withdrawal is delayed by unforeseen circumstances — unless Congress declares war or provides specific authorization. The administration's position hinges on the April 7 ceasefire, which it says pauses or stops the countdown, potentially extending U.S. military presence indefinitely without legislative approval.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth elaborated on this interpretation during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, ostensibly focused on the Pentagon's proposed $1.45 trillion budget for the fiscal year. 'We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops,' Hegseth told senators, according to accounts from the hearing. He did not specify how long the administration believes the war with Iran could continue under this framework, leaving open questions about the duration of U.S. enforcement actions.
The secretary's remarks sparked immediate backlash in the hearing room. The Wall Street Journal reported that Hegseth's assertion was 'met with outrage from Democrats and skepticism from Republicans,' highlighting a rare bipartisan unease over the legal maneuver. Democratic senators, including Ranking Member Jack Reed of Rhode Island, pressed Hegseth on the implications, arguing that the ceasefire does not equate to an end to hostilities. Republicans like Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi expressed reservations but stopped short of outright condemnation, calling for further clarification from the administration.
Despite the ceasefire, U.S. forces remain actively engaged in the region, enforcing a military blockade of Iranian ports that experts say constitutes an act of war under international law. The blockade, initiated as part of the broader escalation that began in early March, has restricted Iran's oil exports and naval movements in the Persian Gulf. Pentagon officials confirmed Thursday that American warships and aircraft continue to patrol these waters, intercepting vessels suspected of violating sanctions or supporting Iranian proxies.
Katherine Yon Ebright, a war powers expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, dismissed the White House's interpretation as unfounded. 'Nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,' she told The Associated Press. Ebright described the move as a 'sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship' over the law, urging Congress to assert its authority through resolutions or funding restrictions to prevent what she called an erosion of constitutional checks on executive power.
The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of a U.S.-Iran conflict that intensified last month. On March 5, Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq — in retaliation for an American airstrike that killed a top Iranian general — prompted President Trump to order retaliatory actions, including the deployment of additional carrier strike groups to the Middle East. Congress received formal notification under the War Powers Resolution on March 7, starting the 60-day clock that the White House now claims has been interrupted.
Legal scholars and former administration officials have long debated the scope of the War Powers Resolution. Enacted in the wake of the Vietnam War to curb presidential overreach, the law has been invoked in conflicts from the 1983 Grenada invasion to the 2011 Libya intervention. Presidents of both parties have tested its limits, with some arguing that ceasefires or de-escalations reset timelines, though courts have rarely intervened due to the political question doctrine.
In this case, the administration's stance echoes arguments made during the Obama-era operations against ISIS, where the White House relied on a 2001 authorization for use of military force despite evolving threats. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed lawsuits challenging such interpretations, but outcomes remain uncertain. For now, the Friday deadline looms large in congressional deliberations, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing to bring a War Powers resolution to the floor if the White House does not comply.
'Congress needs to push back against this sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship over the law,' Ebright said, emphasizing that the resolution's drafters intended a strict timeline to force debate on prolonged engagements.
Outside the hearing, advocacy groups mobilized. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a bipartisan think tank, issued a statement calling the White House claim 'a dangerous precedent that undermines democratic oversight of war powers.' Meanwhile, supporters of the administration, including veterans' organizations aligned with Trump, argued that the ceasefire demonstrates restraint and that congressional micromanagement could hamper national security.
The Senate hearing itself provided a microcosm of the polarized debate. Hegseth, a former Fox News contributor and Trump loyalist confirmed as defense secretary in January, defended the budget request by tying it to ongoing global threats, including Iran and China. The $1.45 trillion figure represents a 4.5% increase over last year's allocation, with significant boosts for missile defense and cyber capabilities — areas directly relevant to the Iran standoff.
The New York Times noted that Hegseth's refusal to outline an end date for the Iran operation fueled concerns about mission creep. 'The American people deserve clarity on when our troops come home,' said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a co-sponsor of previous War Powers reforms. Kaine referenced the human cost, with at least 12 U.S. service members injured in the initial exchanges and Iranian casualties estimated in the hundreds.
As the weekend approaches, Capitol Hill buzzes with strategy sessions. Bipartisan talks are underway for a joint resolution that would invoke the War Powers Resolution to mandate withdrawal, though its passage in the Republican-controlled Senate remains doubtful. Legal experts predict that if the deadline passes without action, it could trigger a constitutional crisis, testing the balance between executive authority and legislative prerogative.
Beyond the legal wrangling, the Iran situation carries broader geopolitical ramifications. The blockade has strained alliances, with European partners urging de-escalation and Russia offering Iran diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Oil prices have fluctuated wildly, spiking 15% in the week following the ceasefire announcement before stabilizing amid hopes for talks. Analysts at the Council on Foreign Relations warn that prolonged uncertainty could embolden Iranian hardliners or provoke proxy attacks on U.S. interests in Syria and Yemen.
For now, the White House holds firm. In a briefing Friday morning, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated that 'the president acted decisively to protect American lives and interests, and the ceasefire reflects that success.' Whether Congress accepts this narrative — or forces a reckoning — will shape not only the Iran policy but the future of war powers in America.