The Trump administration argued Thursday that its military campaign against Iran has ended under the War Powers Resolution, citing a ceasefire that began April 7 and has since been extended. The administration’s interpretation would allow it to avoid seeking congressional authorization before a Friday deadline — the 60th day since President Donald Trump ordered U.S. forces into hostilities against Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out the position during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying it was the administration’s “understanding” that the 60-day clock is paused while the two nations are in a ceasefire.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto, requires a president to obtain congressional approval within 60 days of introducing forces into hostilities or to withdraw them. The law permits a 30-day extension. The Trump administration sent forces into action against Iran on Feb. 28, and the White House has not yet sought formal authorization from Congress.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the legal reasoning, told reporters that for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.” The official said the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.
Behind closed doors, however, the situation remains far from settled. While the ceasefire has been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy is enforcing a blockade to prevent Iranian oil tankers from reaching open waters. Neither side has agreed to a permanent end to hostilities.
Lawmakers in both parties pushed back Thursday. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who questioned Hegseth during the hearing, told reporters the defense secretary “advanced a very novel argument that I’ve never heard before” and said it “certainly has no legal support.” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted for a measure that would end military action in Iran, saying the deadline “is not a suggestion; it is a requirement.” Collins added that further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy.”
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said the administration’s interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law. “Nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” Ebright said. She called on lawmakers to reject the argument, noting that previous presidents have tried to skirt the resolution by claiming military action was insufficiently intense or too intermittent, but Trump’s war in Iran “would certainly not be such a case.”
The administration’s stance comes amid proposals from some allies to circumvent the deadline by simply rebranding the conflict. Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official in Trump’s first term and now a senior adviser at the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggested the White House transition to a new operation, which he dubbed “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury. That mission, Goldberg argued, would be one of self-defense “focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action.” He told the Associated Press the rebranding “solves it all.”
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the legal rationale. The White House has not publicly detailed its next steps if Congress refuses to authorize further action. The House and Senate have taken no votes so far on formal authorization, though Collins’s measure signals growing unease among some Republicans. The administration’s interpretation, if unchallenged, could set a precedent for future commanders to sidestep the War Powers Resolution by declaring a ceasefire or shifting the name of a mission.