US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asserted that the statutory 60-day deadline for seeking congressional approval for military actions against Iran has been paused due to an ongoing ceasefire. This statement was made during a session where Hegseth addressed questions from members of the Senate on Thursday. The deadline in question is the 60th day following President Trump's formal notification to Congress on March 2 regarding strikes against Iran. U.S. law mandates that a president must "terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days of such a notification, unless Congress grants an extension.
A senior administration official elaborated on this position, stating that hostilities with Iran had indeed "terminated." This official emphasized that a ceasefire had been in effect since early April. While a longer-term agreement has not yet been reached through direct negotiations, efforts to resolve the ongoing stalemate appear to be in progress. Iranian state news agency IRNA reported that Tehran has conveyed a proposal for negotiations with the U.S. through intermediaries in Pakistan. The specifics of this proposal have not been publicly disclosed, and it remains unclear whether it has reached the American government.
The conflict has had significant economic repercussions, particularly concerning oil prices. These prices surged sharply after Iran initially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane. However, the prices reportedly dropped following news of Tehran's latest offer for negotiations. The Strait of Hormuz, though effectively closed, continues to exert considerable economic influence worldwide.
During his exchange with senators, Hegseth articulated his understanding of the situation: "We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire." This interpretation was directly challenged by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who questioned its legal basis. "I do not believe the statute would support that," Kaine stated. "I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there."
The legal framework at the heart of this debate is the War Powers Resolution, a decades-old piece of legislation. This resolution outlines specific requirements for a president concerning the use of U.S. armed forces in combat. It stipulates that such use must conclude "within sixty calendar days" of notification to Congress, unless Congress formally declares war or grants an extension of up to 30 days for the "prompt removal" of troops. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973, primarily to limit the executive power of then-President Richard Nixon regarding the Vietnam War.
Further reinforcing the administration's stance, a senior Trump administration official declared, "For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated." This official pointed to the initial two-week ceasefire, which had subsequently been extended, and noted the absence of any exchange of fire between the U.S. and Iran since April 7. This suggests a sustained period of de-escalation according to the administration's assessment.
However, the administration's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution and the legal status of the ceasefire has drawn scrutiny from some experts. Professor Heather Brandon-Smith from Georgetown University Law in Washington D.C. expressed skepticism, stating, "The secretary's claim about hostilities coming to an end does not match up to the evidence." She argued that hostilities have not ceased, citing the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports as a clear act of war and a form of hostility. "The US has instituted a blockade of Iranian ports. This is an act of war. This is hostility," she asserted.
Brandon-Smith further contended that while the War Powers Resolution does not explicitly define "hostilities," the term was intentionally broad to encompass a wide range of actions. She maintained that the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports clearly falls under the definition of hostilities intended to be covered by the resolution. Moreover, she argued that even if a ceasefire is legally in effect, it would not halt the 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution. "A ceasefire is not a permanent end to the conflict," she explained. "To my mind, a permanent end to the conflict is what would actually sort of close up the 60 days."
According to Brandon-Smith, the resolution of the conflict, if the Trump administration continues its course, would ultimately require intervention from the courts or Congress. Meanwhile, reports from CBS News, the BBC's U.S. partner, indicated that administration officials were actively engaged in discussions with members of Congress to secure authorization for the ongoing military actions. Efforts by Democrats in both the House and Senate to limit President Trump's authority in this matter have repeatedly failed. Despite these setbacks, Democrats have pledged to continue their attempts, viewing them as crucial opportunities to formally record lawmakers' positions on the conflict.
Most Republican lawmakers have opposed these Democratic initiatives. However, some have suggested a potential shift in their stance, particularly if the situation extends beyond the initial 60-day period. The conflict itself escalated after the U.S. and Israel initiated extensive strikes against Iran, resulting in the death of Iran's supreme leader. Iran retaliated with attacks targeting Israel and U.S. allied nations in the Persian Gulf region.
The broader context involves the long-standing opposition from the U.S. and Israel to Iran's nuclear program. They allege that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran has consistently and vehemently denied. Reports from U.S. media outlets have presented differing accounts regarding the specific options currently under consideration by President Trump.
Hegseth also engaged in a contentious exchange with Democratic lawmakers in the House during a separate hearing on Wednesday. In that session, a high-ranking official from the Defense Department disclosed that the military operations in Iran had incurred costs of approximately $25 billion (£18.5 billion) to date. Conversely, many Republicans on the House committee expressed strong support for the Pentagon's actions. Congressman Carlos Gimenez of Florida articulated his view that Iran poses an existential threat to the United States, stating, "When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word." He concluded by affirming his support for U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
