President Donald Trump has told Congress that US hostilities with Iran have effectively ended for now under the current ceasefire, arguing that this means he does not have to meet the legal deadline requiring legislative approval for continued military action.
In a letter sent to congressional leaders, Trump said there has been no exchange of fire between US forces and Iran since April 7, 2026. Based on that, he argued that the 60-day requirement under the War Powers Resolution no longer applies in the same way, because the ceasefire has paused the need for further authorisation.
The move came on the 60th day since Trump formally notified Congress of US strikes against Iran. Under American law, a president must obtain approval from Congress within 60 days of introducing US armed forces into combat, or else bring those hostilities to an end.
Trump’s position now is that the ceasefire has stopped the clock. That claim, however, is already being challenged by lawmakers and legal experts who say a temporary pause in fighting is not the same as a permanent end to a conflict.
Trump Says Options Remain on the Table
Although the White House says active hostilities have stopped, Trump made clear that he does not see the crisis as fully resolved. He told reporters that talks with Iran are still under way, but suggested he is frustrated by the pace and substance of negotiations.
According to Trump, a new proposal from Tehran had been discussed through diplomatic channels, reportedly via Pakistan, though no details were made public and it remains unclear whether the United States has formally received or accepted it.
He also said reaching a deal has been difficult in part because Iran’s leadership has become confused after losing a number of top military officials during the war. Trump added that US Central Command had presented him with different options, ranging from a full military escalation to a negotiated agreement.
Later, he signalled that Washington may still be willing to use force again if the outcome is not what he wants. He said Iran was not offering the kind of deal the US needed and made clear he was not prepared to leave the situation unresolved only for the problem to return later.
Congress Faces Renewed Questions Over Its Role
Trump’s argument has reignited debate in Washington over how much authority Congress really has when the White House chooses military action.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed to limit presidential power after the Vietnam War. It requires the president to stop military operations within 60 calendar days unless Congress declares war, grants authorisation or allows a short extension for the safe withdrawal of troops.
In this case, members of Congress have already been under pressure to decide whether they intend to vote formally on the Iran conflict. But efforts led by Democrats in both chambers to restrain Trump or force authorisation have repeatedly failed.
Most Republicans have opposed those efforts so far, although some have suggested their view could shift once the 60-day mark was reached. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers on Thursday that the deadline had effectively paused because of the ceasefire. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine pushed back, saying he did not believe the law supported that interpretation.
Trump himself dismissed the need for congressional approval, telling reporters that other countries do not operate that way and claiming many people see the law as unconstitutional.
Legal Experts Dispute the White House Interpretation
The administration’s reading of the War Powers Resolution has also drawn criticism from legal experts. Some argue that a ceasefire may reduce immediate fighting, but it does not legally erase the underlying conflict or cancel the need for congressional oversight.
Professor Heather Brandon-Smith of Georgetown University Law said that even if a ceasefire is in place, it would not stop the 60-day clock. In her view, only a permanent end to the conflict would do that.
She said that if the administration continues the war without authorisation, the only realistic ways to challenge it would be through Congress itself or through the courts.
That legal uncertainty means Trump’s position may hold politically for now, but still remain vulnerable if lawmakers or judges decide to test it more aggressively.
Ceasefire Holds, but the War Is Not Fully Over
The dispute over legal authority comes as the wider conflict remains unresolved. The current ceasefire has stopped direct exchanges of fire between the United States and Iran, but there is still no long-term peace agreement in place.
The crisis began after wide-ranging strikes by the US and Israel on Iran, including attacks that killed the country’s supreme leader. Iran responded with attacks on Israel and on Gulf states allied with Washington.
Since then, negotiations have struggled to produce a lasting settlement. Key issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme and the future of regional security, remain deeply contested. The strategic shipping route in the region also remains effectively closed, continuing to cause economic disruption beyond the battlefield.
That makes Trump’s claim politically important but also risky. He is saying the war is quiet enough that he does not need Congress’s permission, while at the same time keeping the option of fresh attacks very much alive.
A Temporary Pause, Not a Settled Peace
What the White House is presenting as a legal argument is also a political one. Trump wants to preserve room to act militarily again without first going back to Congress. Critics argue that this weakens the very purpose of the War Powers Resolution, which was designed to stop presidents from waging open-ended conflicts on their own.
For now, the ceasefire has reduced direct fighting, but it has not removed the deeper tensions driving the war. That leaves Congress, the courts and the public facing the same unresolved question: whether a pause in violence is enough to justify bypassing formal approval for a conflict that may not be over.