The Trump administration has reached the 60-day War Powers deadline on Iran and insists the clock no longer counts.

That argument landed Thursday as the deadline arrived for President Donald Trump either to halt US military action against Iran or seek congressional approval to continue it under the War Powers Act of 1973. Reports indicate the administration notified Congress 60 days ago that it was carrying out strikes on Iran. Now defense secretary Pete Hegseth argues that a ceasefire agreed more than three weeks ago "means the 60 day clock pauses, or stops," a reading that could sidestep the law’s central requirement.

The fight now centers less on the battlefield than on a blunt constitutional question: can a president redefine the deadline that Congress wrote to restrain war?

The stakes stretch beyond legal theory. The War Powers Act exists to force a president to justify sustained military action to lawmakers, not simply to announce it. If the administration can treat a ceasefire as a reset button, critics will likely argue that the executive branch has found a way around one of the few formal checks Congress still holds over undeclared conflict. Supporters, meanwhile, may frame the ceasefire as a material change in circumstances that alters the timeline.

Key Facts

  • Thursday marks 60 days since the administration notified Congress about strikes on Iran.
  • The War Powers Act generally requires a president to end hostilities or seek authorization at that point.
  • Pete Hegseth says a ceasefire with Iran more than three weeks ago pauses or stops that clock.
  • The dispute adds to wider tensions over presidential power, surveillance, and US troop posture abroad.

The Iran dispute broke into a broader day of high-stakes national security news. Congress passed a 45-day extension of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, preserving warrantless surveillance powers for US intelligence agencies for now. At the same time, Trump threatened to withdraw troops from Spain and Italy, both of which have voiced criticism of his Middle East policy. That warning followed his suggestion that the US should review its military presence in Germany after remarks from that country’s chancellor about American standing in the conflict with Iran.

What happens next will test whether Congress plans to defend its own authority or accept the administration’s interpretation. Lawmakers can press for a formal authorization vote, challenge the ceasefire theory, or allow the issue to drift while the White House sets a new precedent. That choice matters well beyond Iran: it will help define how easily any future president can stretch military action overseas without clear public debate or direct approval from Congress.