**
In a significant development, President Donald Trump has asserted that military actions against Iran have come to a close, as detailed in a letter addressed to congressional leaders on 1 May 2026. This announcement arrives exactly 60 days after the initiation of Operation Epic Fury, a joint military operation between the United States and Israel, which commenced with airstrikes on 28 February. Trump’s declaration raises critical questions regarding the War Powers Act and the ongoing implications for U.S. foreign policy and military engagement in the region.
A Controversial Ceasefire
In his correspondence, Trump stated that he ordered a two-week ceasefire on 7 April, which he claims has been extended, asserting that there have been no further exchanges of fire since that date. This assertion effectively challenges the 60-day congressional approval requirement stipulated by the War Powers Act of 1973, suggesting that the legal framework governing military engagement may not apply in this instance.
“On April 7, I ordered a two-week ceasefire,” Trump noted in his letter, which was directed to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley. He continued to emphasise that the cessation of hostilities marked the end of the military conflict that began earlier this year.
However, this interpretation of the War Powers Act is contentious. Critics, particularly from the Democratic Party, argue that Trump’s unilateral decisions undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Senator Chuck Schumer condemned the president’s stance, labelling the conflict an “illegal war” and expressing concern over the risks posed to American lives and the domestic economy, which has already begun to feel the strain of rising prices.
Pushback from Congress
The reaction from Congress has been mixed, with Republican lawmakers largely refraining from challenging Trump’s authority to conduct military operations. As the president departed the White House on the day of his letter, he reiterated his belief that seeking congressional approval was unnecessary, arguing that precedent has shown such actions have not been required in the past.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a prominent voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, countered Trump’s assertions by highlighting the ongoing risks to American service personnel in the region. “This announcement does not change the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. service members are still in harm’s way,” she stated, pointing to the reality that hostilities could escalate at any moment.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also weighed in, expressing alarm over the legality of the ongoing military operations. In a letter to the White House, the ACLU contended that the War Powers Resolution does not accommodate a “pause button” for military actions, asserting that the president’s interpretation is fundamentally flawed.
Ongoing Military Operations
Despite the declaration of a ceasefire, Trump’s letter conveyed a sense of urgency regarding the continued military presence in the region. He warned that the threat posed by Iran remains “significant,” indicating that U.S. forces will continue to adapt their posture as necessary to counter Iranian and proxy threats.
Even as Trump alluded to a potential resolution of the conflict, his words suggest a protracted engagement may lie ahead. He emphasised that efforts to secure a lasting peace are ongoing, yet the military operation persists, which raises further concerns about the administration’s strategy—or lack thereof—in the Middle East.
Why it Matters
The implications of Trump’s letter extend far beyond the immediate military landscape. By declaring the end of hostilities while simultaneously maintaining the potential for ongoing military engagement, the administration risks deepening the constitutional crisis surrounding the separation of powers. This situation not only tests the limits of presidential authority but also places significant strain on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. As the debate rages on, the potential for escalation in Iran remains a pressing concern, with real-world consequences for both American troops and the broader geopolitical landscape.