The Trump administration faced bipartisan scrutiny in the US Senate on 22 July over whether it was circumventing congressional war powers by resetting the statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution — a manoeuvre critics say exploits a legal grey zone after a temporary ceasefire with Iran collapsed. The hearing, held before the Senate Appropriations Committee, centred on President Donald Trump's $87.6 billion supplemental funding request.

The Core Legal Dispute

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president must generally terminate hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorises military action or extends the deadline. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski noted that hostilities with Iran began on 28 February without specific congressional authorisation. Congress was subsequently notified on 1 May that hostilities had ended, and a memorandum of understanding was signed in June to preserve the ceasefire while negotiations continued.

That agreement later collapsed, and attacks resumed around the Strait of Hormuz. The administration then sent Congress a fresh war powers notification on 10 July, effectively restarting the 60-day clock.

Murkowski's Warning

'I'm concerned about this sequence, because you have a situation where the claim essentially allows the president to extinguish the war powers clock just at the moment that it becomes legally inconvenient through declaration of temporary ceasefire,' Murkowski said during the hearing.

She also raised a separate question: whether congressional approval of the supplemental funding could itself be treated as authorisation for military operations. She cited a 1999 Justice Department legal opinion on US operations in Kosovo, which held that a supplemental appropriation could satisfy the War Powers Resolution's requirements even without separate authorising language.

What the Pentagon Said

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the administration's position, stating the Pentagon shared the White House's view that the president held sufficient constitutional authority to continue the operation. 'We have all the authorities necessary at this moment,' Hegseth said. On the funding-as-authorisation question, he said he would consult Pentagon lawyers before responding, adding: 'As of right now, we think standalone Article 2 authorities exist for us to conduct this operation on behalf of the defense of the American people.'

Ground War Risk Raised

Democratic Senator Jack Reed separately questioned whether airstrikes alone could defeat Iran and deter further attacks. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that air power had limitations but declined to discuss the possibility of deploying American ground forces. 'I think academically, as you look across the totality of history, air power has got limits and we always have to be mindful of those,' Caine said. He added that military planners develop a range of options and explain their risks to national leaders, but said it would be unhelpful to comment on hypothetical operations.

What Comes Next

The administration's use of the reset war powers clock sets up a potential constitutional confrontation with Congress. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are now weighing whether to attach explicit authorisation — or explicit limits — to the supplemental funding bill. The outcome could define the boundaries of executive war-making authority for this conflict and beyond.