U.S. Military Engagement in the Middle East Concludes

Officials from the Trump administration have announced that military operations in the Middle East have officially come to an end, ahead of the 60-day timeline set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

This law is viewed as a significant check on the powers of the presidency, requiring the Commander-in-Chief to inform Congress within 48 hours of any military deployment. Following this notification, the president has 60 days to either cease military action or seek approval for an extension.

While the law does allow an additional 30 days for a safe troop withdrawal, the administration argued that such an extension isn’t necessary in this case.

The 60-day timeframe was due to expire this Friday, following a notification sent to Congress after strikes in Tehran on March 2nd. A senior administration official stated that operations against Iran were considered over since the ceasefire agreement, initiated by President Trump on April 7th.

The administration stressed that, since the initial two-week ceasefire has been extended indefinitely, the situation no longer counts as active hostilities under the law, which, they claim, removes the need for Congress to take further action.

“On April 7, 2026, I ordered a 2-week ceasefire. There has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since then. The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated,” Trump said.

Since the onset of Operation Epic Fury on February 28th, congressional Republicans have successfully blocked multiple War Powers resolutions aimed at limiting the president’s military powers. Although the GOP has presented a mostly unified front, some members have hinted that their support could shift after the 60-day deadline depending on the administration’s future actions.

In a recent interview, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) asserted that formal congressional intervention wasn’t necessary, insisting that the U.S. is not technically at war with Iran.

“I don’t think we have an active military engagement right now. We are working on peace,” Johnson stated. “It’s essential that we not interfere with the administration’s negotiations, so we’ll see how things develop.”

During a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, War Secretary Pete Hegseth similarly claimed that the ceasefire pauses the clock on the 60-day timeline. However, not all GOP lawmakers agreed with this view. Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) raised concerns about Hegseth’s interpretation.

“The War Powers resolution states that after 60 days, action must be taken,” Tillis remarked. “We should be discussing authorization for military force to ensure the American people know Congress supports the president’s actions.”

Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) also indicated that he wouldn’t back ongoing military efforts beyond the 60-day mark without congressional approval.

Additionally, Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) joined Democrats in a recent push for troop withdrawal from the Middle East.

“The Constitution gives Congress a crucial role in war and peace decisions. The War Powers Act establishes a strict 60-day deadline for Congress to either authorize or conclude U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts,” Collins stated. “This deadline isn’t merely a suggestion; it’s a requirement.”

Senator John Curtis, who opposed the War Powers Resolution, mentioned he would freeze further funding for the conflict until Congress is consulted.

“This isn’t an adversarial stance towards the Administration, but rather a commitment to our governing system. It’s vital for our national security that we neutralize Iran’s threats, but we must do so on solid constitutional ground,” Curtis wrote.

Although Congress has attempted to pass resolutions to halt military operations, they have rarely survived a presidential veto. The 1973 legislation was intended to function as a self-enforcing check, but analysts believe it has been challenging to implement against a determined president.

“It’s difficult to look back over the past 50 years of the War Powers Resolution and claim it has effectively restrained presidential actions,” said David Janovsky, the lead for the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight.

Historically, administrations have argued they didn’t need congressional approval for military actions lasting beyond the 60-day threshold if those did not qualify as “hostilities” under the law. For instance, the Obama administration in 2011 conducted air strikes in Libya without seeking such approval, while the Clinton administration continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999, claiming congressional funding had effectively authorized the action.

“In the past year, the War Powers Resolution has primarily played a political role more than a legal one,” commented Katherine Yon Ebright, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced she is drafting a formal authorization for military force against Iran if there isn’t a viable plan from the White House soon. However, it’s uncertain whether there’s enough backing to approve such a measure.

“I cannot agree to engage in open-ended military action without clear direction or accountability. Congress has a role that must be respected,” she stated.

Murkowski plans to introduce the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) after the Senate’s recess during the week of May 11th.

“President Trump has kept Congress informed since before Operation Epic Fury commenced, with over 30 bipartisan briefings on military updates,” said White House representative Anna Kelly regarding the matter.