Under the 1973 law, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of its start or require its end. The deadline followed U.S. operations that began on Feb. 28, but Senate Republicans took no action before leaving for a one-week recess.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he did not expect a vote on authorizing force in Iran, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the deadline no longer applied because a ceasefire with Iran that began in early April had effectively paused the conflict.

Democrats rejected that claim, saying U.S. military operations continue as the Navy enforces a blockade linked to the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, said Congress should still have a formal role, with Collins calling the deadline “a requirement” and not a suggestion.

A senior administration official said the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 had “terminated” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since a two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.

The position builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told lawmakers during Senate testimony earlier Thursday that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock mandated under the law.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Hegseth said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of a president notifying lawmakers of hostilities or the administration must end the campaign, with a possible 30-day extension allowed for withdrawal.

That deadline falls on Friday for Trump’s Iran operation.The White House has not sought formal approval from Congress, even as U.S. naval operations continue in the Gulf and Iran maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz while Washington enforces a blockade aimed at preventing Iranian oil exports.

Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the administration is legally required to obtain congressional approval and that the ceasefire does not suspend the statute.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republicans to back a Senate effort to halt military action without authorization, said the deadline was binding and not optional.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” Collins said, adding that any further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

The Senate on Thursday rejected, for a sixth time, a Democratic-led measure seeking to end U.S. military action in Iran absent congressional approval, allowing Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump as the legal deadline approached.

Some GOP lawmakers who had supported limited strikes against Tehran have increasingly signaled they want Congress to reassert its constitutional authority if the operation becomes prolonged.The administration’s interpretation has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue the War Powers Resolution contains no mechanism allowing the 60-day period to be paused because of a temporary ceasefire.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said the administration’s argument marked a significant expansion of prior executive branch interpretations of the law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.Previous administrations have often argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the law.

But legal analysts say the sustained U.S. military campaign against Iran, including naval deployments and direct strikes, would be difficult to classify under that narrower interpretation.

Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he had advised administration officials to transition the current operation into a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and defending maritime navigation.

He suggested a follow-up mission could be framed as a self-defense operation rather than a continuation of the existing war authorization timeline.“That to me solves it all,” said Goldberg, now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The dispute highlights the long-running constitutional struggle between Congress and the presidency over control of U.S. military engagements, a conflict that has persisted since lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War era to curb unilateral presidential war-making.

The announcement followed earlier remarks by Trump threatening severe action against Iran, which drew strong criticism from several Democrats and prompted renewed calls for constitutional measures to assess presidential authority.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the ceasefire “changes nothing,” accusing the president of continuing to leverage threats against the Iranian people and arguing that his actions had crossed the threshold for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment, which allows for transfer of power if a president is unable to govern.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called for a measured approach, stating that Congress should undertake oversight to verify the facts. He said a formal review process similar to the Senate’s examination of the Obama-era Iran deal would be a “sound way forward.

”Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump’s earlier rhetoric, describing it as extreme, while acknowledging the ceasefire as a step back from escalation. He said the president appeared to be seeking an “exit ramp” following heightened tensions.

Republican Senator Kevin Cramer expressed support for Trump’s approach, praising what he described as “unwavering dedication” to national defense and framing the ceasefire within a broader “peace through strength” strategy.

Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari said she was “momentarily relieved” by the ceasefire but reiterated concerns about Trump’s statements, calling for his removal from office through impeachment or constitutional provisions.

Republican Representative Zach Nunn welcomed the ceasefire, saying it reflected decisive presidential authority consistent with constitutional powers and the War Powers Resolution.

He added that attention should now turn to securing a lasting agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The reactions highlight deep partisan divisions in Washington over both the administration’s handling of Iran and broader questions surrounding executive authority in matters of national security.

The hearing marked Rubio’s first public appearance before Congress since U.S. forces carried out the operation that led to Maduro’s removal. Lawmakers from both parties pressed the administration for clarity, reflecting unease over how the operation was conducted and what comes next for U.S. involvement in Venezuela.

Rubio said the Trump administration is now dealing with interim President Delcy Rodriguez, a longtime Maduro ally who assumed office following his arrest. While warning that military pressure could continue if U.S. demands are ignored, Rubio emphasized that current talks are focused on cooperation rather than confrontation.

According to Rubio, Venezuela’s leadership has shown openness toward rebuilding ties with Washington after years of strained relations. He told senators that officials on both sides are engaging respectfully and productively, adding that the United States could reopen a diplomatic presence in the country in the near future.

He argued that Venezuela had become strategically important due to the presence and influence of U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran. Removing Maduro, Rubio said, was necessary to address what he described as an untenable security situation affecting both the region and U.S. interests.

Rubio told the committee that, for the first time in two decades, serious discussions are underway to reduce foreign influence in Venezuela. He said many political and economic actors inside the country favor renewed engagement with the United States across trade, security, and diplomatic fronts.

The secretary of state is also expected to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, fueling speculation about Washington’s long-term political vision for the country. Questions remain over whether the U.S. would support a leadership transition beyond the interim government.

The administration’s handling of the Maduro operation has sparked debate in Congress, particularly over war powers. A resolution aimed at limiting further military action without congressional approval narrowly failed after Vice President JD Vance broke a tie vote in the Senate.

Several lawmakers expressed frustration over what they described as a lack of communication from the White House and State Department. Some said they were briefed late or not at all, while oil industry executives reportedly learned of the operation earlier than members of Congress.

Rubio defended the administration, saying secrecy was essential to operational success. He acknowledged confusion among lawmakers but said efforts are underway to keep Congress better informed as policy toward Venezuela evolves.

He also outlined short-term plans to manage Venezuelan oil sales under U.S. oversight, while emphasizing a broader goal of helping the country transition toward stability and prosperity. Rubio said the administration wants Venezuela to eventually choose its leaders through free and fair elections.

Democrats and some Republicans warned that the situation could escalate into a prolonged conflict. They pointed to past U.S. military engagements that began with limited objectives but expanded into costly, years-long wars without clear endpoints.

The close Senate vote and sharp exchanges during the hearing highlighted growing tensions between Congress and the White House over foreign policy authority. As the U.S. charts its next steps in Venezuela, lawmakers signaled they will continue to scrutinize the administration’s actions closely.

The vote reflects growing unease following recent US military operations and signals a renewed push to restore constitutional checks and balances.

The procedural vote passed narrowly, with several senators from the president’s own party joining the opposition to advance debate on the measure, underscoring internal divisions over foreign policy direction.

Lawmakers backing the resolution argue that military decisions of such magnitude must involve Congress rather than remain solely under presidential discretion.

Momentum for the measure increased after the high-profile seizure of Venezuela’s leader, an operation that lawmakers say raised fears of a prolonged and expensive overseas engagement.

Critics within Congress questioned whether the administration had fully disclosed the scope and potential consequences of its actions.

Supporters of the resolution stress that the US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the authority to declare war, and that recent developments risk bypassing that fundamental principle.

They argue that allowing unchecked military action could erode democratic oversight and set dangerous precedents for future interventions.

Several senators cited concerns that the Venezuela operation could expand beyond its original intent, drawing the United States into deeper involvement without clear objectives or timelines.

Such fears are compounded by broader anxieties over rising defense costs and strained federal finances.

The resolution’s authors insist the measure is not intended to weaken national security or undermine legitimate law enforcement actions abroad.

Instead, they say it ensures transparency, accountability, and shared responsibility when military force is considered.

Opponents counter that the president acted within his authority as commander-in-chief, describing the operation as a limited action necessary to protect US interests.

They argue that imposing restrictions could slow decision-making during fast-moving security threats.

Some senators opposing the measure also maintain that Congress has already provided sufficient authorization through existing laws, making the resolution unnecessary.

They warn that such efforts could politicize national security and embolden adversaries.

Supporters reject those claims, pointing out that the scale and rhetoric surrounding the Venezuela operation suggest intentions that go beyond routine enforcement.

They argue that congressional approval is essential to prevent mission creep and long-term entanglement.

The vote has also revived debate about executive transparency, with some lawmakers saying prior assurances from administration officials conflicted with later actions.

This perceived disconnect has contributed to declining trust between Congress and the White House.

Despite advancing in the Senate, the resolution faces significant hurdles, including approval by the House of Representatives and the likelihood of a presidential veto.

Overriding such a veto would require large bipartisan majorities that may be difficult to achieve.

Even so, backers view the vote as an important signal that Congress is willing to challenge unilateral uses of force.

They believe the debate itself strengthens democratic norms and clarifies institutional responsibilities.

The issue has broader implications beyond Venezuela, as lawmakers worry similar actions could be replicated in other regions without legislative consent. Restoring boundaries now, they argue, could prevent future crises.

As discussions continue, the resolution has become a focal point in the wider debate over US foreign policy, military authority, and constitutional governance. The outcome will likely shape how future presidents approach the use of force abroad.

While the final fate of the measure remains uncertain, the Senate’s action highlights a renewed determination to reassert congressional oversight. It underscores the enduring tension between executive power and legislative authority in times of international conflict.