Conflict with Iran: Trump's "completion" statement and the US Congress' deadline

On Friday, May 1, 2026, the White House sent shockwaves through Washington as President Donald Trump declared the conflict with Iran “over.” The declaration came at a critical moment — just before the 60-day deadline set by the War Powers Resolution, which requires the cessation of military operations without congressional approval, had passed. The president’s bold assertion that “hostile actions have ceased” sparked an immediate backlash and deepened a long-standing constitutional dispute over who has the final say on matters of war and peace. With tankers still waiting to pass through the blockaded Strait of Hormuz and oil prices at record highs, the world held its breath as it tried to figure out whether the escalation was truly over or just another maneuver in an endless geopolitical game.

Tensions over Iran, which have been gripping the world since February, have reached a new peak. President Trump, known for his ability to break traditional norms, demonstrated this again by sending a letter to Congress assuring that “hostile actions that began on February 28, 2026, have ceased.”¹ He cited the fact that there had been no exchange of fire between American forces and Iran since April 7, 2026, as evidence that the conflict was effectively over. However, this declarative act raised as many questions as it answered, as thousands of American troops remain in the region and the naval blockade of Iran continues, turning the Persian Gulf into a powder keg.

The War Powers Resolution: Historical Context and Its Essence

At the heart of the current political drama is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This post-Vietnam era legislation was an attempt by Congress to restore its constitutional control over the declaration of war, which it believed had been overly usurped by the executive branch. The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of engaging U.S. forces in hostilities or when hostilities are imminent. The most important provision is that hostilities must cease within 60 days unless Congress declares war or grants a specific authorization for the use of military force (AUMF).² There is also the possibility of a one-time extension for 30 days in case of “urgent military necessity” for the safe withdrawal of troops.

However, the resolution has been the subject of constant controversy since its adoption. Many presidents, including the current one, have considered it an unconstitutional limitation of their powers as commander in chief. It was this aspect that President Trump referred to when he stated: “Most people consider it absolutely unconstitutional.”¹ This position highlights the deep-rooted friction between the branches of US government over the distribution of military authority, which has direct consequences for the country's foreign policy and global stability.

Chronicle of the conflict: From the February escalation to the May deadline

The conflict that President Trump declared “over” began on February 28, 2026, but its roots go much deeper into the complex history of U.S.-Iran relations. The initial strikes, which were not authorized by Congress, raised immediate concerns among Democrats and some Republicans alike. The U.S. administration has not publicly explained its rationale for seeking an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) before launching the operations, presumably relying on broad interpretations of existing authorizations or on the president’s authority as commander in chief. This lack of transparency and prior deliberation has only served to reinforce Congress’s demands to abide by the War Powers Resolution.

According to Trump’s letter, the exchange of fire between US and Iranian forces ended on April 7, 2026. This date has become key to the president’s argument for a “cessation of hostilities” and a “ceasefire regime.” However, the existence of a naval blockade of Iran, which remains in force, contradicts the idea of ​​a complete cessation of the conflict. The blockade, which is an act of war in its essence, is aimed at economic pressure and restricts Iran’s access to international trade routes. This measure not only has devastating consequences for the Iranian economy, but also creates a constant threat of escalation in the Persian Gulf region, where significant military assets on both sides are concentrated³ .

Of particular concern is the situation around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important strategic chokepoints. A significant portion of the world’s oil transit passes through this strait. The closure of the strait, as Senator Jeanne Shaheen has noted, has already led to a sharp rise in oil prices, which has a direct impact on the global economy and consumers’ wallets. The constant threat of disruptions in oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region underscores the fragility of the declared “ceasefire” and the potential for rapid destabilization if tensions rise again.

The Presidential Narrative: “It’s Done” and the White House’s Arguments

The argument of President Trump and his administration is based on several key points. First, the absence of active exchange of fire since April 7 is emphasized. This is interpreted as factual evidence of the cessation of “hostile actions.” Second, the administration refers to what they say is a ceasefire agreement, although its details remain unclear. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, supported this line, stating that the conflict is effectively over¹ .

The third, and perhaps most daring, argument is the president’s already-mentioned claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. This is not a new approach; previous administrations have made similar objections. This argument allows the administration to circumvent, or at least question, the legality of the 60-day deadline, allowing them to maintain a military presence and pressure on Iran without direct congressional authorization. The president also noted that “the ceasefire regime provides additional time,” implying that this could serve as a justification for not meeting the deadline, even though the Resolution clearly sets out the conditions for such an extension.

However, a critical analysis of these arguments reveals their vulnerability. The absence of an exchange of fire does not mean the absence of a conflict, especially when one of the parties applies an economic blockade and tens of thousands of military personnel remain in the zone of potential danger. A “ceasefire”, if not backed up by a comprehensive agreement and control, can only be a temporary pause before a new escalation. And, of course, a declaration of unconstitutionality does not cancel the legal force of the resolution until it is confirmed by a higher court, which is unlikely in conditions of acute political confrontation.

Congress Responds: A Barrage of Criticism and a Struggle for Power

The congressional response to Trump's statement was immediate and harsh, demonstrating the deep divisions between the branches of government and within the Republican Party. Democratic leaders immediately dismissed the president's arguments as out of touch with reality.

The voice of the Democrats: “This is nonsense”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) was among the first to openly express his outrage, calling Trump's argument "bullshit" in a post on the X platform.¹ His words reflect the general frustration and outrage of Democrats, who have long demanded from the administration a clear strategy on Iran and adherence to constitutional norms.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that the president’s statements are out of step with the reality: “President Trump’s declaration that the war with Iran is ‘over’ does not reflect reality, as tens of thousands of American troops in the region remain at risk, the administration continues to threaten to escalate hostilities, and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, causing prices to skyrocket at home.”¹ She also noted that the president launched this war “without strategy and without legal authorization,” and today’s announcement does not change those facts. These words echo long-standing concerns about transparency and accountability in foreign policy.

The Republican Split: Between Loyalty and the Constitution

Even within the Republican Party, there was no unity. While most Republicans supported the administration, some expressed serious concerns about meeting the 60-day deadline. Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) said he would not support further funding for military operations against Iran unless Congress declared war.¹ . Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) emphasized that Congress would have to authorize a war if it lasted longer than 60 days. Her position is a prime example of how constitutional principles sometimes trump party loyalty.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (D-S.D.) joined other Republicans in calling on the administration to provide a clear plan to end the war as the 60-day deadline approaches. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Miss.) expressed hope that the administration would “confirm that it is on track to end it.”¹ These voices indicate that even among Trump's associates there is an understanding of the need to adhere to the legal framework and plan for an exit from the conflict.

The Senate vote was a testament to that. Senator Collins joined Democrats and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in voting to advance a war powers resolution that would have ordered Trump to withdraw U.S. troops. Despite their efforts, the Senate rejected the resolution by a vote of 50 to 47. It was the sixth resolution Democrats have brought to a vote since the war began, and each one has been blocked. “The Constitution gives Congress a significant role in making decisions about war and peace, and the War Powers Act sets a clear 60-day deadline for Congress to either authorize or end U.S. participation in foreign hostilities,” Collins said. “This deadline is not a suggestion, it is a demand.”¹ .

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), although she voted against the resolution, expressed concern about the lack of congressional authorization for war. She said she planned to introduce legislation to authorize war if the 60-day deadline passed without a “credible plan and information from the administration.”¹ . Her position reflects a desire for legislative resolution, even if it doesn’t come through a resolution to withdraw troops. “Congress has a role. Congress must step up and fulfill that role, that responsibility that the Constitution places upon us,” she stressed on the Senate floor. “We owe it to these men and women who serve our great nation.”

International implications and geopolitical stakes

Trump’s declaration of an “end” to the conflict with Iran, coupled with the ongoing blockade and uncertainty about future actions, has far-reaching international consequences. First, it undermines credibility in American foreign policy. If one branch of government declares an end to the conflict while the other and the international community see prolonged military action, it creates chaos and unpredictability. U.S. partners in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel, who rely on American support to confront Iran, may feel disoriented and uncertain about Washington’s long-term intentions.⁴ .

Second, this decision could further destabilize the Middle East. Iran, for its part, is unlikely to accept a unilateral US declaration of a “ceasefire” while the blockade continues. This could lead to asymmetric responses, such as support for regional proxy forces or cyberattacks, which could provoke a new wave of escalation. Even without direct fire, the region remains tense, and any spark could ignite a full-scale confrontation. Closing the Strait of Hormuz, or even threatening to do so, is also a powerful lever that Iran could use to respond to pressure, leading to an even greater crisis in global energy markets.⁵ .

Third, it sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. If presidents can circumvent the War Powers Resolution by simply declaring a conflict “over” or asserting its unconstitutionality, it could completely undermine Congress’s role in making decisions about war and peace. This violates the fundamental principles of the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and could lead to more frequent and less justifiable military interventions in the future.

Global markets are also reacting to this uncertainty. While oil prices have already risen due to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, further political instability and uncertainty about US policy could cause even greater fluctuations. Investors do not like unpredictability, and Trump's announcement, instead of calming the markets, only added to their nervousness.

Future scenarios and unresolved issues

The situation around Iran remains extremely dynamic, and the “end” of the conflict announced by President Trump looks more like a political declaration than a final solution. There are several key scenarios for how events will unfold:

1. Continuation of the current state of affairs with further tension: The administration could continue its policy of “maximum pressure,” maintaining the blockade and periodically threatening additional strikes. This would keep Iran in a state of constant tension, but also maintain the risk of accidental escalation.
2. Congress is taking more decisive action: Senator Murkowski’s announcement that she intends to introduce a war authorization bill suggests that Congress is not about to give up its authority entirely. If such a bill were introduced, it would force lawmakers to make a stark choice: either formally authorize military action or force the administration to end it. However, given previous votes, the chances of such an authorization passing without significant pressure from events may be low.
3. Diplomatic solution or escalation: Despite the harsh rhetoric, a diplomatic solution is not out of the question. The world has already seen unexpected twists in relations between the US and Iran. However, the Trump administration is currently demonstrating an unwillingness to make concessions, and Iran, for its part, is unlikely to capitulate under pressure. This creates a vicious circle, where without direct dialogue, the risk of escalation remains high.
4. Legal battle: It is possible that the opposition may try to challenge the president's actions in the courts, citing violations of the War Powers Resolution. However, the judiciary has traditionally been wary of interfering with the president's foreign policy powers, especially in matters of war.

This situation is a vivid example of the delicate balance between the branches of power in the United States, where constitutional norms are constantly tested by the realities of foreign policy. Trump’s statement did not “end” the conflict with Iran; it only opened a new, no less tense stage in this long and dangerous saga, forcing all parties to the conflict and the international community to be on alert.

Sources

1. The Washington Post: Trump says Iran conflict is 'terminated' as he hits congressional deadline. May 1, 2026.
2. Congressional Research Service: The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice.
3. Council on Foreign Relations: The Strait of Hormuz.
4. Associated Press: Middle East Allies React to US-Iran Tensions.
5. Bloomberg: Oil Markets Brace for Prolonged Hormuz Disruptions.