President Donald Trump has sent formal letters to both the House and Senate asserting that U.S. military hostilities against Iran have "terminated," a legal move designed to sidestep the requirement to seek congressional authorization for continued military action.

The claim of termination is not simply a factual update — it carries direct constitutional weight. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president who commits U.S. forces to hostilities must notify Congress within 48 hours and, absent congressional authorization, must end those hostilities within 60 days. By declaring the hostilities over, Trump is effectively arguing that the 60-day clock has stopped and that no vote on authorization is needed.

The Constitutional Tension

Congress has long contested presidential war-making powers, and the War Powers Resolution was passed specifically to check executive military action. In practice, however, presidents of both parties have routinely interpreted the law narrowly to preserve flexibility — and Congress has rarely forced the issue through binding votes.

Trump's letters follow the same playbook: frame the action as complete before the authorization deadline becomes politically unavoidable. The move puts the legal burden on Congress to challenge that framing, which requires political will and procedural coordination that majorities have historically struggled to assemble.

What This Means Going Forward

The practical effect is that Trump can avoid a potentially divisive floor vote on whether the military strikes against Iran were lawful and whether any further action is sanctioned. Members of Congress who believe the hostilities have not truly ended — or that the initial strikes required prior authorization — face an uphill path to force a legal resolution.

Any congressional challenge would likely involve a concurrent resolution demanding withdrawal of forces, a procedural tool that has rarely succeeded. Courts have also generally declined to referee War Powers disputes between the two branches, leaving enforcement to political pressure rather than legal mandate.

The broader significance is that the administration is establishing a precedent: that a president can define when a military episode begins and ends for the purpose of circumventing the authorization requirement. How Congress responds — or fails to — will shape the boundaries of executive war power in future conflicts.