President Donald Trump sent letters to congressional leaders Friday declaring that hostilities between U.S. forces and Iran "have terminated," a move that landed precisely as the 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution expired, and one designed to head off any congressional effort to restrict military operations against Tehran.
The letters, addressed separately to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate President Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stated plainly: "There has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026." Trump added: "The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated."
The timing was not accidental. Friday marked exactly 60 days since the war began in late February. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must seek congressional authorization for military force within that window, or withdraw. Trump chose a third path: declare the fighting over and sidestep the question entirely.
The administration's legal footing rests on the two-week ceasefire Trump imposed on April 7, which has since been extended. Because no shots have been exchanged since that date, the White House position is that hostilities have ended, making the 60-day authorization requirement moot.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid the groundwork for that argument a day earlier. Testifying Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth said he believes the War Powers countdown clock "pauses or stops in a ceasefire."
Sen. Tim Kaine pushed back directly. "I do not believe the statute would support that," Kaine told Hegseth during the hearing. The exchange previewed a broader constitutional tug-of-war that may be just beginning.
Senate Republicans have already blocked a Democratic resolution aimed at forcing a withdrawal from Iran as the war powers deadline approached, signaling that the GOP majority has no appetite for constraining the commander in chief mid-conflict.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump went further than the letters. He said he would not seek authorization from Congress for military force against Iran, and suggested the entire War Powers framework is unconstitutional.
CNBC reported that Trump framed his refusal in historical terms:
"There's been numerous, many, many times, and nobody's ever gotten it before. They consider it totally unconstitutional, but we're always in touch with Congress, but nobody's ever sought it before."
He doubled down moments later: "Nobody's ever asked for it before. It's never been used before. Why should we be different?"
The claim that no president has ever sought War Powers authorization is debatable on its face, Congress authorized the use of military force after September 11, 2001, and before the Iraq War. But Trump's broader point, that presidents of both parties have routinely conducted military operations without formal congressional sign-off, is grounded in decades of precedent. The War Powers Resolution has been more honored in the breach than in the observance since it was enacted over Richard Nixon's veto.
That history does not settle the legal question. It does, however, explain why Trump felt comfortable drawing the line where he did. And it exposes the awkward position of lawmakers who spent years tolerating executive war-making under previous administrations but now want to reassert authority.
Earlier clashes between the White House and Capitol Hill over the scope of presidential authority in Iran have followed a similar pattern, with the Senate blocking efforts to limit Trump's war powers even as strikes continued.
Trump's letters may have closed one chapter, but the president's own words Friday made clear the next one is far from written. He told reporters that Iran wants to negotiate, but that he is not satisfied with what Tehran has offered.
"Iran wants to make a deal because they have no military left."
That assessment, that Iran's military capacity has been effectively destroyed in the two-month-old war involving the United States and Israel, was offered without public evidence. But Trump used it to frame his negotiating posture: Iran is desperate, and he is in no rush.
"They're asking for things that I can't agree" to, Trump said. He acknowledged that talks had "made strides" but added, "I'm not sure if they ever get there."
The president painted a picture of an Iranian regime in disarray. He said there "is tremendous discord" within Iran's leadership and described the power structure as fractured beyond easy repair.
"In Iran, the leadership is very disjointed. It's got two to three groups, maybe four, and it's a very disjointed leadership."
"And with that being said, they all want to make a deal, but they're all messed up," Trump added.
Meanwhile, Pakistani officials in Islamabad confirmed Friday that Iran had sent them an updated proposal to end the war, which they had forwarded to American officials. The substance of that proposal has not been disclosed publicly. Whether it addresses the terms Trump has rejected remains an open question.
The real story beneath Friday's letters is not a legal technicality about ceasefire clocks. It is the continuing failure of Congress to assert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace.
The War Powers Resolution was designed to prevent exactly this scenario: a president waging a sustained military campaign without explicit congressional approval. Yet here we are, 60 days into a shooting war with Iran, and Congress has neither authorized the use of force nor taken meaningful steps to stop it. Trump's letters are described as a move aimed at discouraging lawmakers from restricting military action, and the fact that such discouragement is even necessary tells you how passive the legislative branch has been.
This is not solely a criticism of one party. Republicans have rallied behind the president's authority. Democrats have introduced resolutions but lack the votes to force a withdrawal. The net result is a Congress that watches from the sidelines while the executive branch conducts foreign policy by letter and ceasefire extension.
Trump has shown a willingness to use executive leverage to force congressional action on other fronts, from refusing to sign bills until Congress passes the SAVE Act to stepping in during prolonged legislative impasses. On Iran, he has taken the opposite approach: daring Congress to act, knowing it probably won't.
The dynamic mirrors other recent standoffs between the White House and Capitol Hill, including the extended DHS funding shutdown that dragged on for weeks while lawmakers stalled.
Several questions remain unanswered. The exact duration of the ceasefire extension beyond the initial two weeks has not been specified. The terms Iran proposed through Pakistani intermediaries are unknown. And whether Hegseth's "pause the clock" theory would survive a legal challenge is untested.
Trump's declaration that hostilities have terminated may prove to be a statement of fact, or a statement of convenience. If fighting resumes, the 60-day question comes roaring back, and Congress will face the same choice it has been dodging since late February: authorize the war, end the war, or keep pretending the Constitution doesn't apply when the decisions get hard.
For now, the ceasefire holds. Iran's military is diminished. And the branch of government the Founders entrusted with the power to declare war sits quietly, content to let someone else make the call.
