US Senate rejects limits on Trump’s war powers on Iran

A Senate vote marked the sixth time this year that lawmakers have rejected a war powers resolution seeking to limit US involvement in Iran, with the measure failing along largely party lines and underscoring divisions in Congress over President Donald Trump’s military campaign.

The vote came as the Trump administration moved to declare that hostilities with Iran had “terminated” for the purposes of a looming 60-day War Powers deadline, effectively arguing that a ceasefire reached in early April ended the legal requirement to either wind down operations or seek renewed congressional authorisation, The Guardian writes.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must end unauthorised military action within 60 days unless Congress approves continued force.

The deadline fell on Friday, but the White House has said the absence of active exchanges since the ceasefire means the conflict no longer meets the threshold of “hostilities”.

The administration’s position has been sharply contested by Democrats and some legal experts, who argue the ceasefire does not erase Congress’s oversight role. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has told lawmakers the statutory clock should be considered paused, a reading critics say stretches the law’s intent.

Despite repeated efforts to rein in the conflict, congressional attempts to pass war powers resolutions have consistently failed in both chambers. The most recent Senate vote followed a familiar pattern of near party-line division, with only a small number of Republicans breaking ranks.

Republican leaders have shown little appetite for formally authorising or constraining the operation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there was no current momentum within his conference for a vote on authorising force.

The dispute has intensified political tensions in Washington, where concerns over the war’s economic impact and broader escalation risks continue to grow, even as the administration insists the conflict has effectively ended under its legal interpretation.

By Aghakazim Guliyev