A senior official in the Trump administration said Thursday that, for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, the U.S. military operation targeting Tehran has already been “terminated,” pointing to the ceasefire agreement reached between the United States and Iran as the key turning point.
The statement comes as Friday marks 60 days since Congress was formally notified of the conflict on March 2. In remarks to NewsNation, the official cited Donald Trump’s April 7 announcement of a temporary truce as justification for halting the clock tied to the War Powers timeline.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that interpretation during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, arguing that the ceasefire effectively pauses the statutory deadline.
“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire,” Hegseth told lawmakers, responding to questions from Tim Kaine.
That reasoning, however, did not go unchallenged. Kaine expressed skepticism that the War Powers Act—designed to limit the executive branch’s ability to engage in extended military action without congressional approval—allows for such a pause simply because active hostilities have temporarily ceased. Under the law, a president may deploy U.S. forces for up to 60 days without authorization if there is an imminent threat, with the option to request a 30-day extension to ensure safe troop withdrawal.
While administration officials maintain the ceasefire changes the legal calculus, questions remain about whether a pause in fighting truly constitutes an end to hostilities—or merely a break in them.
House Speaker Mike Johnson took a more measured tone, telling NBC News that the U.S. is “not at war” with Iran at present.
“I don’t think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing or anything like that,” Johnson said. “Right now, we are trying to broker a peace.”
He added that he would be cautious about second-guessing the administration while negotiations remain ongoing, signaling a preference among some Republicans to give diplomacy room to develop, even after weeks of conflict.
Still, not all members of the GOP are aligned on how to interpret the timeline—or the broader role of Congress in decisions of war and peace. Senators Susan Collins and Rand Paul joined Democrats in an effort to force the administration to withdraw U.S. forces from the Middle East. The resolution ultimately failed by a narrow margin of three votes, with one Democrat, John Fetterman, voting against it.
In a statement following the vote, Collins underscored that presidential authority in military matters has clear constitutional limits.
“The Constitution gives Congress an essential role in decisions of war and peace,” she said, adding that the War Powers Act’s 60-day deadline is “not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”
Other Republicans have taken a middle-ground approach. Senator John Curtis, who opposed the resolution, indicated he would withhold support for additional funding tied to the conflict unless Congress is formally consulted.
“This is not an adversarial stance against the Administration,” Curtis said. “It is a commitment to our system of government.”
His remarks reflect a broader tension in Washington: a shared concern about Iran’s capabilities paired with unease over how military engagements are initiated and sustained. Even as many lawmakers agree on the need to counter perceived threats, the debate highlights an enduring question—whether the pursuit of security abroad can be squared with constitutional guardrails at home, especially when wars appear to pause rather than clearly end.
[READ MORE: DOJ Report Raises Questions About FBI’s Handling of Catholic-Linked Case]
