The Trump administration argues a ceasefire ended the war, aiming to avoid congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution.
A ceasefire is being treated as a legal reset, as the Trump administration argues the war in Iran ended before the 60-day limit under the War Powers Resolution.
In explaining its position, Misryoum reports that the White House points to the ceasefire that began in early April as proof that the conflict already stopped for the purposes of a 1973 law tied to congressional approval for prolonged military action.. Donald Trump’s public comments align with an earlier view raised by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a Senate hearing.
The administration’s argument rests on a specific timeline: it says the fighting that started on February 28 had effectively ended for the law once the ceasefire began on April 7.. Misryoum also reports that, under this framing, there has been no fighting between U.S.. forces and Iran since the ceasefire started, even though the broader ceasefire terms were later extended.
This matters because how officials interpret the 60-day clock can determine whether Congress is brought in during an extended military standoff.
Even as the ceasefire language remains in place, Misryoum reports that Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz and that the U.S. Navy is blocking Iranian oil tankers from leaving. That backdrop has kept pressure on lawmakers who say the administration cannot treat the situation as already settled.
Under the War Powers Resolution, a president generally has until May 1 to seek congressional approval or wind down military action, with a separate 30-day extension available under the framework.. Misryoum reports that Democrats have pushed for formal approval, arguing the administration should not rely on legal interpretations that, in their view, stretch the statute.
The 60-day deadline also carried significance for some Republicans who supported short-term action but signaled they wanted congressional involvement if the operation continued beyond the limit.. Senator Susan Collins, Misryoum reports, said the deadline was mandatory rather than optional and backed efforts to stop military action because Congress had not approved it.
In a separate line of debate, Misryoum reports that a former adviser on countering Iranian weapons, Richard Goldberg, suggested the administration consider a new follow-on approach, potentially framed as a self-defense mission designed to reopen navigation.. Meanwhile, Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration believes the 60-day timeline was paused during the ceasefire.
Not everyone accepted the logic.. Misryoum reports that Senator Tim Kaine said Hegseth’s new reasoning was unlike anything he had heard and lacked legal grounding.. Katherine Yon Ebright of the Brennan Center, according to Misryoum, argued the interpretation would be a major stretch of how the law has been applied before and said the statute does not contemplate pausing the 60-day limit.. She also urged lawmakers to challenge the administration’s argument.
Ultimately, this fight is not just about dates on a calendar; it is about who has the legal authority to keep military pressure in place, and what Congress will accept as compliance under the War Powers Resolution, Misryoum says.