U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a ceasefire with Iran halts the 60-day [1] War Powers Act clock during a congressional hearing on Thursday.
This interpretation is critical because it determines whether the administration must secure formal congressional approval to maintain military operations. If the clock is paused, the executive branch avoids a legal deadline that would otherwise mandate a vote on the legality of the conflict.
Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, D.C., Hegseth defended the U.S.-Israel military campaign. He said the operation has significantly degraded Iran's military capabilities and is not an "endless war" [2].
"The ceasefire effectively pauses the war powers clock, delaying the need for congressional approval for continued action," Hegseth said [1].
However, the legal interpretation is contested. Some Democratic lawmakers said the clock should not be reset because U.S. forces remain active despite the halt of air raids [1]. The disagreement centers on whether a cessation of active hostilities is sufficient to pause the statutory timeline established by the War Powers Act.
Hegseth also addressed the financial scale of the conflict. The cost of the Iran war to the United States has reached $25 billion [2]. Despite the expense, the Defense Secretary said the strategic goals of the campaign are being met through the degradation of Iranian assets.
The hearing occurred as lawmakers scrutinize the military budget and the long-term strategy for regional stability. Hegseth said the current approach ensures that Iran is less capable of projecting power in the region, a goal he said justifies the current expenditure and operational posture.
“The ceasefire effectively pauses the war powers clock, delaying the need for congressional approval for continued action.”
The dispute over the War Powers Act clock reflects a fundamental tension between executive war-making authority and legislative oversight. By arguing that a ceasefire pauses the 60-day limit, the Defense Department is attempting to maintain operational flexibility without the risk of a congressional mandate to withdraw. If the legal challenge by lawmakers succeeds, it could force the administration to seek a formal authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to continue its presence in the region.
