President Donald Trump sent letters to congressional leaders on May 1, 2026, stating that hostilities with Iran have terminated [1].

The move is a strategic effort to bypass a looming legal deadline. By declaring the conflict over, the administration seeks to avoid a formal vote on the legality of military actions in the region.

In his correspondence to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate leaders, Trump said, "The hostilities have terminated" [1]. The president said to reporters after sending the letters that a ceasefire is in place and the conflict is resolved [3].

This declaration directly addresses the requirements of the War Powers Act, which typically imposes a 60-day limit [4] for congressional approval of military hostilities. The White House said in a statement accompanying the letters, "Because the war is over, we do not need any further congressional authorization" [2].

The administration's technical argument suggests that since the active conflict has ended, the statutory clock for authorization no longer applies. This allows the executive branch to maintain its current posture without seeking a legislative mandate from the House or Senate.

However, the claim that the war is fully resolved has met with scrutiny. While the administration maintains that the ceasefire holds, reports indicate that U.S. troops remain stationed in the region [5]. This presence creates a tension between the legal definition of "terminated hostilities" and the operational reality of military deployment.

The letters were addressed to leaders in Washington, D.C., including Speaker Johnson [1]. Some initial reports incorrectly identified Johnson as the Senate Speaker, but he serves as the Speaker of the House [1].

“"The hostilities have terminated," Trump wrote in his letter to Congress.”

This maneuver represents a legal interpretation of the War Powers Act designed to preserve executive authority over foreign military engagements. By framing a ceasefire as a total termination of hostilities, the administration avoids a potentially contentious congressional debate over war powers while keeping military assets in place, effectively sidestepping legislative oversight through a technicality.