Lead

Washington — The Trump administration has told Congress that the ceasefire with Iran, in place since early April, has “terminated” hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, according to multiple reports. The administration’s position, conveyed Thursday by a senior official and echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Senate testimony, is designed to defuse a legal deadline that would otherwise have required the president to seek congressional authorization for the conflict by May 1.

Coverage Comparison

Coverage of the development has been consistent across international outlets, including Al Jazeera, the South China Morning Post, and The Hindu. All three reported that a senior administration official said the ceasefire that began in early April means the war is effectively over for the purpose of the 60-day clock established by the War Powers Resolution. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the same argument before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, according to Al Jazeera and the South China Morning Post.

The reporting also highlights that while the ceasefire has halted direct US-Iranian strikes since early April, the underlying tensions have not eased. Iran continues to maintain what analysts describe as a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy maintains a naval blockade of Iranian ports and ships in the strait, according to reports from Al Jazeera and the South China Morning Post.

The administration’s position is being challenged. Al Jazeera reports that Democratic lawmakers and legal experts argue the ceasefire does not reset the clock on the War Powers Resolution deadline. The statute, passed in 1973, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities and to secure authorization within 60 days, or end US military involvement. The law allows a 30-day extension, but only to safely withdraw forces, not to continue combat operations.

Key Claims

  • The Trump administration argues that the ceasefire, which began in early April, has effectively ended the war, thereby pausing the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution.
  • The US and Iran had not exchanged fire since the ceasefire began, according to multiple reports, though direct negotiations have since stalled.
  • Iran continues to block the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a naval blockade, according to multiple reports.
  • The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, requires the president to obtain congressional approval within 60 days of introducing US forces into hostilities, with a limited 30-day extension allowed only for safe withdrawal.
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee reiterated the administration’s stance that the clock should be considered paused.
  • Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers contest this interpretation, arguing that a temporary ceasefire does not reset the statutory deadline.

Perspectives

The Trump administration’s argument has been framed by officials as a pragmatic reading of the law, given the fragile nature of the truce. A senior administration official said that for purposes of the War Powers Resolution, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated.” The officials did not immediately respond to questions about whether the administration would seek a formal declaration of war from Congress if the ceasefire were to collapse.

Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, however, have dismissed the administration’s reasoning. As Al Jazeera reports, they argue that the law contains no provision for a pause once the 60-day clock begins, and that the White House is attempting to sidestep its constitutional obligations. Legal scholars have pointed out that the Supreme Court has historically given wide latitude to the executive branch in matters of military engagement, but the question of whether a ceasefire constitutes an end to hostilities for the purpose of the War Powers Resolution has rarely been tested.

The administration’s argument has found some resonance among Republican lawmakers who have expressed reluctance to authorize a prolonged ground war but are hesitant to cut off funding for troops already deployed. The situation remains fluid, with the ceasefire due to expire soon and no clear path to a negotiated settlement.