Hegseth: Trump Exempt from War Act Due to Ceasefir

Washington, United States

A fresh constitutional debate has taken shape in the United States after Pete Hegseth argued that former President Donald Trump may not be bound by the strict timeline of the War Powers Resolution due to a ceasefire that, according to the administration’s interpretation, effectively halted ongoing hostilities with Iran.

The controversy centers on a key provision of the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law designed to limit presidential authority in military engagements without congressional approval. Under the statute, a president must seek authorization from Congress within 60 days of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or withdraw them. The timeline in question traces back to late February 2026, when U.S.-linked military actions triggered a cycle of escalation with Iran, bringing the legal deadline into focus by early May.

Hegseth’s argument, presented during discussions with lawmakers, suggests that a ceasefire reached in early April changed the legal context. In his view, the pause in active combat means that “hostilities” , the key term in the law, were effectively terminated, thereby stopping or resetting the 60-day clock. Administration officials have echoed this interpretation, maintaining that the absence of sustained fighting removes the immediate requirement for congressional authorization.

That reading, however, has met firm resistance. Legal scholars and several members of Congress argue that the War Powers Resolution contains no explicit provision allowing a ceasefire to suspend or reset the deadline. They contend that once U.S. forces have been introduced into a conflict, the legal obligation remains unless Congress formally authorizes continued involvement. Critics warn that accepting the administration’s position could weaken the law’s purpose, which was established in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to ensure legislative oversight of military action.

The dispute has unfolded against a broader political backdrop, with attempts in Congress to force a vote on ending or approving the military engagement failing to gain sufficient support. Lawmakers remain divided, and partisan gridlock has prevented a clear legislative response, leaving the interpretation of the law largely contested.

At its core, the issue raises a deeper constitutional question: how to define “hostilities” in modern conflicts, where engagements can shift between active combat and temporary pauses. Whether a ceasefire constitutes a true end to hostilities or merely an interruption remains central to the disagreement.

With the legal deadline reached and no consensus in sight, the matter is expected to continue drawing scrutiny from Congress and constitutional experts. It may ultimately require judicial interpretation or further legislative clarification to resolve a question that sits at the intersection of executive authority and congressional power, a balance that has long defined the American system of governance.

Discover Also Pentagon: US War in Iran Has Cost $25 Billion So Far