TEHRAN - President Donald Trump said Friday that a ceasefire with Iran removes the need for congressional authorization of US military operations, a position that has drawn fierce criticism from Democrats who argue he is effectively treating a cornerstone war-limiting law as irrelevant.

In letters to Congress, Trump claimed that “hostilities… have terminated,” pointing to a two-week ceasefire in April which he unilaterally extended later. On that basis, the administration argues that the 60-day requirement under the War Powers Resolution no longer applies.

But the 60-day deadline—triggered when Congress was formally notified on March 2 after the February 28 launch of military operations against Iran—has now expired, intensifying a constitutional clash between the White House and lawmakers. Enacted in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the resolution was designed to prevent exactly this kind of prolonged, unilateral military engagement by requiring presidents to seek congressional approval.

Democrats say Trump’s interpretation undermines both the letter and spirit of that law. Senator Tim Kaine warned that accepting the administration’s reasoning would render the statute effectively meaningless. “And then it’ll be 120 days, and then it’ll be forever,” Kaine said, arguing that the president’s logic opens the door to endless war without accountability.

Leading House Democrats, including Gregory Meeks, Adam Smith, and Jim Himes, echoed that concern, stating that a ceasefire does not erase ongoing hostilities. They point to continued US enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran and a large military deployment in the region as clear indicators that the conflict is far from over.

For critics, these actions expose what they see as a contradiction at the heart of the administration’s argument: while claiming peace, the United States continues to carry out measures widely recognized as acts of war. Legal experts have supported that view. Michael Glennon described the claim that the ceasefire halts the War Powers clock as “a stretch,” emphasizing that enforcing a blockade constitutes ongoing hostilities under international and domestic law.

Democrats have also broadened their criticism beyond legal arguments, accusing Trump of steering the United States into another costly and unnecessary conflict. Many maintain that the February strikes—conducted alongside Israel—were launched without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat, raising questions about whether the war was justified in the first place.

That frustration erupted during a contentious House Armed Services Committee hearing, where War Secretary Pete Hegseth faced sharp questioning. Representative John Garamendi described the situation as a “quagmire,” accusing the administration of dragging the country into another prolonged Middle East war and then attempting to redefine reality to avoid legal constraints.

Economic pressures are compounding the political fallout. Iran’s restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted global oil flows, driving up fuel prices and increasing domestic strain. At the same time, lawmakers have questioned the true cost of the war, with some estimates suggesting it could reach tens of billions of dollars—far higher than official figures.

For many Democrats, the deeper concern is institutional. Experts argue that by claiming a ceasefire nullifies congressional oversight while continuing military pressure, Trump is effectively treating the War Powers Resolution as a paper tiger—acknowledging its existence but ignoring its constraints. In their view, this sets a dangerous precedent that weakens Congress’s constitutional role and concentrates war-making authority in the executive branch.

As diplomatic efforts remain stalled and tensions with Iran persist, Democrats warn that the United States risks becoming trapped in an open-ended confrontation—one conducted without authorization, without clear objectives, and increasingly, without regard for the legal limits established in the shadow of Vietnam.