Trump claims hostilities with Iran ended, sparking Democratic opposition

President Donald Trump's declaration that the "hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have ended" with Iran marks a significant, albeit contentious, moment in U.S. foreign policy. In a letter to Congressional leaders, Trump asserted that no further exchanges of fire have occurred since a ceasefire was implemented, thereby attempting to circumvent the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which limits military engagement to 60 days without Congressional approval. This move, predictably, has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats.

“

Permusuhan yang bermula pada 28 Februari 2026 telah ditamatkan

From the perspective of the Trump administration, this declaration is a strategic maneuver to maintain flexibility in foreign engagements without the encumbrance of legislative oversight. The argument hinges on the interpretation of "hostilities" and the effect of a ceasefire. By claiming the conflict has ended, Trump aims to sidestep the legal requirement to seek an extension or formal authorization from Congress, which has been a point of contention throughout his presidency.

“

tiada lagi pertukaran tembakan dengan Iran sejak gencatan senjata dikuatkuasakan.

However, Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Jeanne Shaheen, vehemently reject this interpretation. They argue that the continued deployment of U.S. warships off the coast of Iran, effectively blockading Iranian oil exports, constitutes ongoing hostility. For them, a mere cessation of direct fire does not equate to the end of hostilities, especially when significant military assets remain engaged. They view Trump's actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine Congressional authority and prolong military involvement without accountability.

“

undang-undang kuasa perang itu tidak terpakai.

This situation highlights a recurring tension between the executive and legislative branches regarding the use of military force. While Trump views the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutional and a ceasefire as a valid reason to pause the 60-day clock, Democrats see this as a dangerous precedent that erodes checks and balances. The international community, particularly allies and adversaries alike, will be watching closely to see how this legal and political battle unfolds, and what it signifies for the future of U.S. military interventions abroad.

“

menganggap undang-undang itu tidak berperlembagaan