“Terminated.” That is the word that President Trump issued in his letter to Congress to inform lawmakers that hostilities between the United States and Iran had ceased. He did so just as the 60-day clock on the War Powers Act was expiring.
As Trump’s words were being read by members of Congress, 45 ships had done a U-turn and were headed back to that theater. American troops are still boarding Iranian vessels, and Iran is still attacking ships on the Strait of Hormuz. His words say one thing, but his actions and those of Iran say something else.
Democrats are not innocent, having sat on their hands while Obama conducted a seven-month war against Libya, avoiding repercussions of violating the War Powers Act with verbal gymnastics. Or how about Bill Clinton and his military action against Kosovo that lasted 78 days with no formal approval from Congress?
Everyone is lying.
On Friday, May 1, 2026, PBS reported that President Trump had issued a letter to Congress to report the “termination” of hostilities with Iran. He no sooner declared the operation over than he contradicted himself, writing:
"Despite the success of United States operations against the Iranian regime and continued efforts to secure a lasting peace, the threat posed by Iran to the United States and our Armed Forces remains significant.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had a bit of a different take in terms of the 60-day clock winding down. According to a Military Times report, he stated:
"We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”
That is an assumption or an argument to be made, but it is not a fact. If Hegseth can find the provision in the War Powers Act that stipulates the clock pauses, I would encourage him to bring it forward. But it does not exist, so he cannot do that.
On the opposite side of this coin is the fact that the War Powers Act does not negate the idea of a pause for a ceasefire. This is a glaring shortfall of the legislation that is now being exposed, with an apparent loophole that Hegseth wants to exploit.
The spirit of the law is clear, but the “spirit” does not always win in a court of law, especially these days when we have more activists on the bench than jurists.
The semantics aside, we have some real actions that have to be answered for in terms of whether this operation has been ceased or not.
For instance, we still have a blockade in place. An argument can easily be made that even though shots are not being fired, actions are being taken that would constitute aggression on the part of the United States towards Iran. Not to mention the acts of aggression by Iran against the United States and its allies.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) questioned Hegseth’s premise, stating:
"I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there."
To his point, a blockade is surely considered a use of force, and the War Powers Act specifically states that the president must end all uses of force within that 60-day window.
Prof. Heather Brandon-Smith, from Georgetown University Law in Washington DC does not believe the administration is standing on firm ground here. She stated:
"The secretary's claim about hostilities coming to an end does not match up to the evidence. Hostilities have not ceased. The US has instituted a blockade of Iranian ports. This is an act of war. This is hostility.”
Her response was almost verbatim what Sen. Kaine had stated:
"A ceasefire means bombs aren't dropping. It doesn't mean there are no hostilities. If we're using the U.S. military to blockade everything going into and out of Iran, that's still hostility."
While the administration is clearly playing semantics, Democrats have absolutely no moral high ground here.
In my April 29, 2026, deep dive on Hegseth (click here to read that full report) calling out Democrats for their apparent desire to see the United States fail against Iran, I noted how Pelosi had flipped during Obama’s Libyan military action.
When Pelosi was asked if she was satisfied that Obama was within his presidential powers during the operation against Libya, she responded:
"I'm satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead."
Yet, when she was asked the same question about Operation Epic Fury, she responded:
"The Constitution is clear: decisions that lead our nation into war must be authorized by Congress."
She is right about the Constitution being clear, but her memory appears a bit clouded, as Trump was well within his rights to conduct a strike that concluded within 60 days before needing congressional approval.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for his part, had posted an acronym, “TACO Trump,” regarding his alleged inaction against Iran. TACO stood for “Trump always chickens out.”
Now that Trump has done something, he has called it “Operation Epic Failure” and a “War of Choice.”
It is just a constant bait and switch with Democrat leadership. You stand pat, they criticize you. You take action, and they find a problem with it. They say you didn’t ask Congress, but Trump did not need to ask Congress before the 60-day clock ran out, and even if he did, no way Democrats would have approved it.
This is all political theater on the part of Democrats, nothing more.
While Republicans have supported Trump right up through that 60-day window, the anti-Trumpers in Congress were champing at the bit to break ranks once that threshold was crossed.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is in the midst of what will be a very costly re-election campaign, without the support of Trump. She finally cracked in the latest vote to block Trump via the War Powers Act. Before the vote, The Hill reported her as saying:
“The 60-day trigger is a very important one. At that point, Congress has to authorize the military action to continue. There’s a 30-day period where you could wind it down. And I will not support extending the hostilities beyond that 60 days except for wind-down activities.”
After complimenting our military for its efforts, far more than Democrats have done (as they have made this operation out to be a complete and utter failure), Collins stated:
“Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close. I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has had an on-again-off-again relationship with Trump, also showed some signs of cracking, stating that he wanted further clarification from the administration. According to an Axios report, he stated:
"I imagine the administration will send us some sort of formal notification saying, 'Here's where we think we are under the War Powers.’ Either we want 30 more days, or we don't think we need additional time because of X, Y, Z."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is another anti-Trumper, so her siding with Democrats surprised nobody. In her statement on the Senate floor, she ripped off a key Democrat talking point about a lack of transparency, stating:
“The War Powers resolutions have attempted to stop this conflict without establishing a path forward. An AUMF recognizes the reality that the US military is already engaged, and provides structure and clarity by requiring the administration to define what we're trying to achieve and the means of achieving it. It requires reporting to Congress, and it brings transparency where little has existed over the past two months.”
Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), formerly a fierce Trump advocate, is taking shots at Trump every chance she gets, including regarding this claim that the war is over.
She claimed it “is absolutely not over,” as well as believing that Trump is “restarting the clock” to avoid the need for a congressional vote, according to her X post.
While there are some clear cracks, there are also plenty of Republicans who will back Hegseth and Trump’s interpretation of the War Powers Act. For instance, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) stated:
"Presumably, they will communicate that in a formal way. They have, in a very careful way, followed the War Powers Act so far."
He had further stated that there was some “wiggle room” as well as being willing to “take a look at whatever they send over.”
The truth here is that neither side is being completely honest with the American people...
| What the War Powers Act Actually Says | What Trump / Hegseth Claim | What Democrats Claimed Under Obama |
|---|---|---|
| President must seek congressional authorization within 60 days of hostilities. | "The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated." Clock no longer applies. | Obama argued U.S. role in Libya was "supportive," not direct hostilities. Clock didn't apply. |
| No pause, stop, or reset provision exists anywhere in the statute. | Hegseth: "The 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire." | Libya was labeled "kinetic military action," not "hostilities," to avoid triggering the clock entirely. |
| The law covers "hostilities" broadly — not just active exchange of fire. | U.S. Navy blockading all Iranian ports, boarding vessels, turning away 45 ships = not hostilities? | NATO-led bombing campaign killing Libyan forces for 7 months = not hostilities? |
| 30-day extension available if president needs time to draw down forces. | Trump did not request the 30-day extension. Declared "terminated" instead. | Obama did not request the 30-day extension. Redefined the war instead. |
| Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war or authorize military force. | Trump: "I would not [seek authorization] because it's never been sought before." | Pelosi: "I'm satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead." |
| War Powers resolutions allow Congress to force an end to unauthorized hostilities. | Six War Powers resolutions filed. Republicans blocked all six. (Latest: 47-50) | Democrats never filed a single War Powers resolution against Obama on Libya. Not one. |
| The left column is the law. The middle column is what Republicans are doing to avoid it. The right column is what Democrats did to avoid the same law under Obama. The War Powers Act has not changed since 1973. What changes is which party is in the White House and which party suddenly cares about the Constitution. Trump says the war is "terminated" while running an active naval blockade. Obama said Libya wasn't "hostilities" while NATO bombed the country for seven months. Neither side respects this law. They just take turns pretending it doesn't apply to them.
Sources: War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548), Trump letter to Congress (May 1, 2026), PBS News, CNBC, Axios, Military Times, Fox News, CBS News, The Hill, ABC News, Washington Post. Obama/Libya: Congressional Research Service, NPR archives. |
||
I have supported this operation from the outset, but that does not mean that I will allow the administration or Democrats to lie to you about what is going on.
What upsets me here is that both sides treat us as though we cannot read the law or see what is actually taking place. This is not about scoring points or trying to exploit some loophole that, in reality, does not exist.
The American people are funding this war, so, at the very least, we would hope the people in the political machine would be honest with us, but every one of them is more interested in good theater rather than telling us the truth.
Hegseth is inventing clauses in a law that do not exist. And Democrats are demeaning our military by calling this “Operation Epic Failure,” among other names. As I stated before, this was a real chance for political unity in this country, but once again, our elected representatives decided to act like petulant children, failing every single American citizen in the process.
