Ceasefire loophole? Pete Hegseth says Iran ceasefire may suspend 60-day Congress war approval clock

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the Trump administration does not currently require fresh congressional authorisation to continue military operations linked to Iran, arguing that an ongoing ceasefire may effectively pause the legal 60-day war powers clock.

Appearing before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth referenced the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to seek congressional approval or end hostilities within 60 days of initiating military action. With the deadline nearing in the Iran conflict, he suggested the timeline may not apply under current conditions.

“Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and the White House counsel on that; however, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire,” Hegseth said, according to CNN reporting.


Also Read: 'You’re a war criminal': Protester disrupts Pete Hegseth at US Senate hearing

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine rejected the interpretation, arguing, “I do not believe the statute would support that,” and warned it raises a “really important legal question” for the administration.

Hegseth also defended the Pentagon’s conduct in the conflict, saying the US maintains strict safeguards to limit civilian harm. According to Al Jazeera, he described an “ironclad commitment” to minimising civilian casualties and said the military has “every resource necessary” to protect civilians, including human oversight in AI-assisted systems.

Lawmakers also questioned reports of an early strike in the conflict that allegedly killed more than 170 people at a girls’ school, raising concerns over civilian protection and accountability.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand challenged the administration’s stance on public backing for the operation, asking, “Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren’t behind?” Hegseth responded that he believed there was public support, noting the conflict began only two months ago. Gillibrand pushed back, saying there was no evidence the US was safer or that Iran had imminent plans to attack.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump defended the broader approach, describing US action as a “military operation” rather than a war, while claiming it had significantly weakened Iran’s capabilities and pressure on its economy.

(With inputs from agencies)