U.S. President Donald Trump sent an official letter to Congress stating that the "hostile actions" with Iran, initiated under "Operation 'Epic Fury'," are "ended." The statement sparked heated political and media debate in Washington. The message was sent after the expiration of the 60-day period prescribed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and it has generated disagreements over its interpretation and its impact on the powers of the president and Congress. Reactions ranged from those who saw it as a constitutional maneuver to those who regarded it as an attempt to expand executive power without legislative approval.
The letter notes that hostilities began on February 28, 2026, and that there has been "no exchange of fire since April 7" — the date a temporary ceasefire was declared — so the administration considered the hostile actions to be over. At the same time, Trump emphasized that the "Iranian threat remains significant," and that the Department of Defense continues to reposition forces in the region. This combination — declaring an end to hostile actions while keeping troops in place — creates a legal gray area that allows for multiple interpretations regarding the need for a new congressional mandate.
Public debate unfolded on X (formerly Twitter), revealing a sharp split between two camps. The first views the letter as a "legal trick" to restart the "war clock" without a congressional vote. The second considers it a clever use of presidential authority, giving the administration flexibility on the ground. Analysts noted that the letter could allow the "war powers timer" to be reset while maintaining a military presence that would permit operations to resume if necessary. Scholars described the disagreement not simply as a political dispute but as a conflict over the boundaries of the Constitution and the president's authority as commander-in-chief.
Among critics, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said this is not a genuine end to the war but a "restart of the clock" to avoid a congressional vote, calling the move "unconstitutional." Researcher H. Huntsman said the letter represents an "interpretive stretch" of the law, relying on a narrow definition of hostile actions (the absence of an exchange of fire) while ignoring that the presence of troops and blockades signifies a continued conflict. Critics warned that such an administration interpretation could undermine the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches.
Supporters, for their part, defended the decision as providing "maximum legal flexibility," according to analyst Chris Rollins, who identified three goals: formally ending hostile actions, keeping troops in place, and retaining the ability to resume operations without congressional approval. Expert Jim Hanson believes Trump is "playing skillfully" within the War Powers Resolution, resetting the legal timer without losing freedom of action. White House spokesperson Jackie Heinrich conveyed the administration's position that any attempt to limit the commander-in-chief's powers could "weaken the American military abroad," and confirmed continued dialogue with Congress.
Trump's letter is being perceived today as a tactical move in a broader struggle over the limits of executive power, rather than as a definitive statement that the confrontation with Iran is over. While the White House adheres to an interpretation that gives the president freedom for rapid action, opponents insist this threatens Congress's role in matters of war and peace. As tensions persist and U.S. forces remain at forward positions, this step looks like the start of a new phase in which the confrontation is conducted with more complex legal and military tools, leaving the legal and political battle unresolved.
Comments on the news
How does the Strait of Hormuz affect logistics for U.S. forces in the region and why is it important to the conflict with Iran? – The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic narrow maritime passage through which about 20–25% of the world's oil shipments transit. For U.S. forces in the region (including bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE) the strait is critically important because fuel and military supplies pass through it. By controlling the strait, Iran can easily block or restrict ship passage, which would paralyze U.S. logistics. In a conflict, this creates a vulnerability: Iran could use minefields, fast attack boats, and anti-ship missiles to target tankers and warships, forcing the U.S. to seek alternative routes (for example, a much longer route around Africa), which would significantly increase time and cost of operations.
Which Iranian armed forces (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, regular army) took part in the conflict and what is their role in Iran's political system? – Both main structures are involved in the conflict: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the regular army (Artesh). The IRGC is an elite force directly subordinate to the Supreme Leader (Ali Khamenei), playing a key role in regime protection, control over the nuclear program, and missile forces. The Artesh is the conventional military responsible for defending borders and sovereignty. In Iran's political system the IRGC holds enormous influence: its members occupy important posts in government, the economy, and intelligence, effectively acting as a "state within a state." In conflicts with the U.S. and Israel the IRGC often takes on active strike operations (for example, missile strikes on bases), while the Artesh provides defense and logistics.
Why does the Iranian government view the presence of U.S. troops in the region as a threat to its national security? – The Iranian government views U.S. military presence (especially bases in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) as direct encirclement and preparation of a foothold for military operations against Iran. This perception is rooted in history: the overthrow of Iran's government in 1953 (involving the CIA), U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980–88 war, and threats from U.S. administrations (under both Trump and Biden). To Tehran, U.S. forces are an instrument for undermining sovereignty, fomenting unrest (for example, by supporting opposition), and pressuring the regime. Additionally, Iran fears the U.S. could use its bases to strike nuclear facilities or Iranian military forces, making their presence an existential threat.
Full version: إنهاء الأعمال العدائية ضد إيران.. رسالة ترمب تفجر جدلا بواشنطن