Just hours before a legally mandated 60-day deadline expired, the Trump administration declared that its military conflict with Iran had effectively ended, a position that allows the White House to sidestep a direct confrontation with Congress over the War Powers Resolution of 1973. A senior administration official argued that because no exchange of fire had occurred between American and Iranian forces since April 7, the hostilities that began on February 28 were now terminated. This interpretation, first floated by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth during Senate testimony, holds that the early-April ceasefire effectively paused the 60-day clock, meaning the president has not yet triggered the requirement to seek congressional authorisation for continued operations.

Viewed from Washington, the manoeuvre is the latest flashpoint in a deeply partisan struggle over war powers that has intensified as the conflict in the Middle East has lapsed into a protracted standoff over shipping routes rather than active combat. Democrats, pointing to the plain language of the 1973 law, have denounced the administration’s legal reasoning as a circumvention of the Constitution’s exclusive grant to Congress of the power to declare war. Within the Republican ranks, unease is growing even among those who have broadly backed the president, with some lawmakers questioning whether a ceasefire that has not yet produced a formal peace treaty can truly be said to have ended a conflict.

From Tehran, the calculus appears more pragmatic. Iranian officials have welcomed the ceasefire as a tactical pause but have refused to finalise a comprehensive agreement, leaving the strategic standoff over Persian Gulf shipping lanes unresolved. European capitals, meanwhile, have watched with measured alarm, noting that the administration’s argument—that a cessation of active exchanges constitutes termination—could set a precedent for future presidents to bypass legislative oversight by engineering temporary truces. Analysts in London suggest that the White House may eventually notify Congress of a 30-day extension under a provision of the War Powers Act, or simply ignore the deadline altogether, daring lawmakers to challenge an executive interpretation that, if left unchecked, would further erode the constitutional balance on matters of war.

Looking ahead, the immediate consequence of this legal contortion is likely to be inertia. With no political appetite in a divided Congress to force a vote on formal authorisation, and with the administration insisting its military objectives have been achieved, the standoff over shipping routes will probably continue under a de facto ceasefire. Yet the deeper issue—whether a president can unilaterally define the end of hostilities to avoid legislative scrutiny—remains unresolved, setting the stage for a future constitutional clash that could redefine how America wages war without formal congressional consent.