Ceasefire with Iran Reported, But Debate Over War Powers Continues

President Donald Trump informed Congress on Friday that a ceasefire with Iran has supposedly ended hostilities, which in turn resets the timeline concerning Congress’ authority over war powers. Still, legal experts argue that ongoing military actions complicate this assertion.

A senior official from the administration told FOX News Digital, “As far as the War Powers Resolution is concerned, hostilities that began on February 28th have ceased.” They also mentioned that both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on April 7, which was extended. Importantly, there haven’t been any skirmishes between U.S. forces and Iran since that date.

The White House made an official notification to Congress on Friday via a letter under the War Powers Resolution, indicating that hostilities were considered to have ended due to the ceasefire.

“Even with successful U.S. operations against the Iranian government and ongoing efforts for lasting peace, the threat from Iran and its proxies remains substantial,” Trump stated in his letter. He assured Congress that he would keep them updated about any significant changes concerning U.S. forces in line with the War Powers Resolution.

For years, presidents from both parties have stretched the interpretations of the War Powers Resolution, seeking more leeway to execute military operations without congressional approval.

According to the law, the president must stop the deployment of U.S. forces within 60 days of initiating hostilities unless Congress approves the operation, allowing for limited extensions. The recent two-month dispute has exposed significant differences in how the law is interpreted, especially on whether the White House needs to seek Congress’s approval. Although bombings ceased on April 7, U.S. military operations continue with a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, which many view as an act of war.

John Bellinger, a former general counsel for the State Department, commented, “A ceasefire doesn’t automatically terminate the 60-day war powers period.” He highlighted the ongoing presence of U.S. warships and thousands of troops around the blockade, suggesting that military operations are still actively taking place and could, quite frankly, still pose risks.

The U.S. military is also boarding vessels suspected of violating the blockade, at times using force to disable them before inspections can occur.

Stephen Pomper from the International Crisis Group was blunt regarding the interpretations of the law: “I don’t think that’s a very reliable interpretation. It’s certainly not based on the text of the law.” He pointed out the ongoing military presence and argued that such actions hinted at an active state of war.

This isn’t a new trend; various presidents have skirted the edges of the War Powers Resolution. For instance, during the “tanker war” with Iran in the late 1980s, George H.W. Bush’s administration claimed that isolated naval encounters did not constitute continuous hostilities. Similarly, in 1999, the Clinton administration argued that Congressional funding for the Kosovo campaign implied authorization of military action.

More recently, the Obama administration asserted that U.S. involvement in Libya did not amount to “hostile acts” under the War Powers Resolution, while the Biden administration made similar claims regarding deployments in Yemen.

Experts, including Nicholas Creel from the University of Georgia, noted that both Republican and Democratic administrations have creatively navigated this law. Despite Congress regularly challenging such interpretations, it rarely enforces troop withdrawals, and legal courts often remain uninvolved, granting presidents considerable leeway regarding military engagement.

If Congress does not take action, the administration could carry on its military operations without needing new authorization, which would keep the existing dynamic in place.

Pomper remarked, “It’s really up to Congress, but they often prefer not to contest.” Meanwhile, Matt Zierer, a political science professor, suggested that Congress may lack the determination to enforce the War Powers Act, as focusing on other powers to limit defense spending could be more impactful. However, Zierer highlighted that the current situation could lead to political fallout, especially if funding cuts are made. “It becomes a political or symbolic game, but it’s not something Congress members want to deal with,” Zierer elaborated, pointing out the complexities of military intelligence.

When questioned about the 60-day deadline, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) expressed that he doesn’t spend much time worrying about it.