The Donald Trump administration has argued that a key May 1 deadline it faces to secure congressional approval for the US-Israel war on Iran no longer matters because of the ongoing ceasefire with Tehran.

Once the president notifies the United States Congress about a war, he has a 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution to get lawmakers to greenlight the campaign or withdraw forces involved in hostilities.

In the case of the war on Iran, that deadline expires on Friday.

But on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that the ongoing yet fragile ceasefire had effectively paused the clock on the deadline.

However, Hegseth’s interpretation is being strongly contested. Democratic lawmakers and legal experts argue that the statute contains no provision allowing for a pause once the deadline has started.

The disagreement reflects a deeper clash over how “hostilities” are defined, and whether a temporary ceasefire can alter legal obligations the White House is expected to adhere to.

So what is the Trump administration’s position on the War Powers Resolution, and how are the opposition and legal experts challenging it?

What has the Trump administration said?

During testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth argued the “60-day clock pauses, or stops” during a pause in fighting.

The US and Iran have largely halted direct attacks since April 8 as ceasefire negotiations began, though those talks have since stalled.

Since then, Tehran continues to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz and Washington has maintained a naval blockade of Iranian ports and ships in the strait. President Trump has repeatedly warned that strikes could resume.

Other officials in the Trump administration have echoed Hegseth, arguing that the absence of active exchanges since early April means hostilities have effectively ceased for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution and that the 60-day deadline may therefore no longer apply.

“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated,” an official told the Reuters news agency.

“There has been no ⁠⁠exchange of ⁠⁠fire between US Armed Forces and ‌‌Iran since Tuesday, April 7.”

Moreover, some have suggested simply starting a new operation under a new name to get around the deadline. Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the US National Security Council during Trump’s first term, said he has recommended to administration officials that they simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage”, a sequel to Operation Epic Fury — the name of the current operation against Iran.

That new mission, he told The Associated Press news agency, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation”.

“That to me solves it all,” Goldberg added.

What the War Powers Act requires

The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, places limits on how long a US president can wage war without congressional approval.

Under the law, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities. From that point, a 60-day clock begins. Though the US and Israel launched their current war on Iran on February 28, the Trump administration notified Congress on March 2, which is why the 60-day deadline expires on May 1.

Within those 60 days, the president must either secure authorisation from Congress — through a joint resolution passed by the House and the Senate — or end US military involvement.

The law does allow for a limited 30-day extension, but only to safely withdraw forces, not to continue combat operations indefinitely.

However, the statute, which was designed to restrict presidential war-making powers after Vietnam, has been ignored or challenged by past presidents, who have argued parts of the law are unconstitutional.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is another possible legal foundation for continuing military operations, as it grants the president authority to deploy force for defined objectives.

It was originally enacted in 2001 following the September 11 attacks to allow the US to carry out its so-called “war on terror”, and then reaffirmed in 2002 to remove Saddam Hussein and authorise the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Since then, successive administrations have relied on these authorisations to support a broad range of military actions.

Due to deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans, Congress is unlikely to authorise continued military action against Iran.

On Thursday, a sixth bid in the Senate to curb Trump’s authority to conduct military operations using the War Powers Resolution was defeated by 50-47, with members voting overwhelmingly along party lines.

Democrats pushed back strongly against Hegseth’s claim, arguing there was no legal basis in the War Powers Resolution for pausing the 60-day countdown once a ceasefire begins.

At the hearing, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine rejected that interpretation outright, saying he did not “believe the statute would support that”.

Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator from California, also challenged the argument, pointing out that US forces remain active in the region despite the halt in air attacks. “Ceasing to use some forces while using others does not somehow stop the clock,” he noted.

Despite a halt in air and missile strikes, US and Iranian forces have continued hostilities in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

On April 20, the US military fired on and seized the Iranian‑flagged container ship Touska, with Tehran days later capturing two foreign commercial vessels.

Although nearly all Republicans voted down the War Powers Resolution on Thursday, Senator Susan Collins of Maine broke ranks to side with Democrats.

“The president’s authority as commander-in-chief is not without limits,” she said, pointing out that the 60-day deadline is “not a suggestion, it is a requirement”.

Has the ceasefire reset the clock, per experts?

Bruce Fein, a US constitutional and international law expert and former associate deputy attorney general, said the resolution “never says anywhere” that the 60-day deadline to receive congressional approval for military action “stops if there’s a ceasefire”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Fein warned that such an interpretation “turns the resolution into simply a paper tiger”.

“You have to ask, why has President Trump not asked Congress to declare war? Just like in the Vietnam War, there was not any declaration of war there either, because he knows he would lose the vote,” he added.

The War Powers Resolution was passed after then-President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia, and more than a decade of war in Vietnam, despite his vetoing the resolution initially.

“Why would Mr Trump not ask Congress for a declaration if he thought it would pass? He has a majority in the House and the Senate. He knows he will lose,” Fein said.

“The War Powers Resolution is a sideshow. The real element here is that under Nuremberg International law principles adopted by Congress, we are engaged in a criminal war of aggression,” he added.