Story Highlights
- Trump wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate President pro tempore Chuck Grassley declaring that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated,” effectively claiming the War Powers Act deadline no longer applies
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators the ceasefire “pauses or stops” the 60-day clock — a legal interpretation directly contradicted by the statute’s text
- Senate Democrats have attempted six war powers votes to halt the conflict; all have failed, with the most recent failing 47–50, with Sen. Susan Collins becoming the first Republican to join Democrats
What Happened
President Donald Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate President pro tempore Chuck Grassley declaring that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” Yet he also made clear in the letter that the war may be far from over, writing that “the threat posed by Iran to the United States and our Armed Forces remains significant.”
The letter brings into stark relief the bold but legally questionable assertion of presidential power at the heart of Trump’s war, which he began without congressional approval two months ago. The message effectively skirts a May 1 legal deadline to gain approval from members of Congress to continue the war with Iran — a deadline that was already set to pass without action from Republican lawmakers who are deferring to the president.
The War Powers Act gives the president 60 days of military action to respond to an “imminent threat” before having to end the fighting or receive a vote from Congress. Trump suggested the law itself is unconstitutional. “It’s never been sought before, there’s been numerous, many times and nobody’s ever gotten it before, they consider it totally unconstitutional,” Trump told reporters ahead of his departure from the White House. “Nobody’s ever asked for it before; it’s never been used before.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Thursday he did not plan on a vote to authorize force in Iran or otherwise weigh in. “I’m listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” Thune said. But some Republican senators pushed back. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said from the Senate floor: “I do not accept that we should engage in open-ended military action without clear direction or accountability. Congress has a role. Congress has to step up and fulfill that role, that obligation that the Constitution assigns to us.”
The administration’s letter also ignored the fact that the U.S. continues to blockade Iranian ports — a blockade that, under international law, constitutes an act of war. The administration also ignored that U.S. forces fired on an Iranian tanker on April 19, well after the April 7 date Trump cited as the end of hostilities.
Why It Matters
The constitutional stakes of Trump’s War Powers Act maneuver extend well beyond the Iran conflict. Since the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution — enacted after Vietnam precisely to prevent presidents from waging open-ended wars without congressional approval — every administration has skirted or disputed the law. But Trump’s approach is uniquely direct: rather than simply ignoring the deadline, his administration has put forward an affirmative legal theory that the ceasefire suspends the clock, which has no basis in the statute’s text.
Despite multiple administrations holding that view, the law has never been used to end a military action and courts have shied away from getting involved. There have been multiple lawsuits over the years brought by members of Congress challenging the use of force under the War Powers Resolution, but courts have not weighed in on the constitutionality of the law.
The framers placed the power to declare war explicitly in Article I — in Congress — for a reason. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 26 that the requirement to debate war, alongside the two-year limit on government funding for the military, would force accountability and prevent unchecked executive military adventurism. Trump’s claim that no president has ever sought congressional war authorization is historically inaccurate: Congress authorized the Gulf War, the Afghanistan war, and both Iraq wars.
For American citizens, the conflict between executive war-making and congressional authorization is not abstract. Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed and more than 400 injured. The Strait of Hormuz remains partially blockaded, pushing gas prices to an average of $4.48 per gallon nationally. The war is being waged and funded without any formal vote by the people’s elected representatives.
Economic and Global Context
The Iran war has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon numbers presented to the House Armed Services Committee. The Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion. None of this spending has been authorized by a formal war declaration or supplemental appropriations bill passed through the normal legislative process, raising additional constitutional questions about congressional control of the purse.
The administration’s resistance to transparency on war costs has been a source of friction on Capitol Hill even among Republicans. The White House has declined to provide a supplemental appropriations request to formally fund the conflict, instead drawing on existing Pentagon accounts and emergency authorities. Lawmakers from both parties have complained they cannot exercise meaningful oversight without knowing the full financial scope of the war.
Sen. Jack Reed, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking Democrat, argued that the war has left the U.S. in a worse strategic position, with 13 American troops killed and more than 400 injured. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical sea route for global oil shipments, remains closed, sending fuel prices skyrocketing. Iran still has highly enriched uranium and enough combat capabilities to keep the conflict locked in an impasse.
Implications
Sen. Murkowski announced she will introduce an authorization for use of military force when the Senate returns from recess the week of May 11 if the administration does not present a war plan. She said Congress needs to fulfill its constitutional role of declaring war and providing oversight under the Constitution. Whether her AUMF finds sufficient Republican support to advance remains deeply uncertain given GOP leadership’s reluctance to challenge the president.
If Trump’s ceasefire-pauses-the-clock theory is accepted without legal challenge, it creates a precedent with sweeping implications for every future president. Any commander-in-chief could theoretically negotiate a brief tactical pause in any conflict to reset the War Powers clock indefinitely — effectively nullifying the 1973 law without formally repealing it.
Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told the Associated Press: “Is the expectation that the Trump administration is going to follow the law? I do not have that expectation.” Without a court willing to adjudicate the question or a Congress willing to enforce it, the War Powers Resolution increasingly appears to be, as Vice President JD Vance said before the war, a law without practical force.
Sources
