For now, the president is trying to navigate his way through the War Powers Act by dissembling rather than challenging its constitutionality.
My weekend column addresses the implausibility of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s claim, in Senate testimony, that the so-called cease-fire ordered by President Trump in the Iran war constituted a last-second freeze of the 60-day War Powers Act clock — after which the statute calls for the commander in chief to withdraw U.S. forces unless Congress has authorized combat. (The 1973 War Powers Act is often referred to as the War Powers Resolution.)
In reality, there is no cease-fire: (a) Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues its de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, an act of war by which the IRGC is willfully preventing free navigation of international waters (which were open until the fighting started on February 28); and (b) U.S. forces continue to enforce a blockade against Iran, an act of war that is aimed to compel Tehran’s abandonment of the strait closure (among other war aims).
Nevertheless, on Friday, President Trump formally informed Congress in a letter that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” The president’s letter mentions neither Iran’s continuing strait closure nor the U.S. blockade. Rather, Trump contends that because he ordered a two-week cease-fire on April 7 and has extended it, the war (which he refers to as “hostilities” in a strained effort to avoid acknowledging Congress’s constitution war powers) is now over. He adds, “There has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026.” Apparently, by the president’s lights, forcible IRGC operations to block traffic through the strait since then do not count since they were not direct attacks on our military.
A classified attachment (not public, obviously) was included with the president’s letter. Perhaps these matters are addressed there. But, in any event (and elaborated on in the column), the U.S. blockade is an act of war under American and international law. So is Iran’s blocking of the strait. Ergo, it cannot be that hostilities have terminated. There is more to warfare and the use of force than direct exchanges of fire.
The letter seems to be a retreat from the president’s assertion, earlier on Friday, that the War Powers Act is “completely unconstitutional” — and its implication that the administration need not comply with the statute’s terms, including the 60-day deadline for using force without congressional approval. At the start of the letter, Trump says he is providing the information therein “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.” At the letter’s conclusion, the president again commits to continue updating Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”
Still, the president is not acting consistently with the act. He has informed Congress that hostilities have terminated, but they have not terminated and, hence, he is persisting in an unauthorized use of force beyond the act’s deadline without obtaining, or even seeking, congressional authorization. In essence, Trump has toned down his rhetoric about the asserted unconstitutionality of the act (at least in the letter), but he is flouting the statute while purporting to follow it.
The letter thus raises more questions — about the state of the war, about the administration’s position of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act — than it answers.