Trump recently announced an extension of the ceasefire with Iran but did not set a deadline for negotiations, saying the US would maintain its blockade on Tehran and wait for Iran’s proposed terms for further talks.

However, under the War Powers Resolution, Trump must seek congressional approval by May 1 to continue military deployments beyond 60 days in an active conflict.

Without approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, continued operations would require termination or legal justification for extension.

The 1973 law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and limits unilateral military engagement to 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension in cases of “unavoidable military necessity,” if formally certified.

Legal experts note that while the law sets limits, past administrations have at times bypassed or interpreted its requirements differently, and enforcement mechanisms remain unclear.

Congress has so far not approved continued military action related to Iran, with recent Senate efforts to limit presidential authority under the resolution failing in a narrow vote split largely along party lines.

Some Republican lawmakers have backed Trump’s initial actions but stressed that any prolonged military engagement must receive congressional approval.

Others have warned that operations should legally stop if authorisation is not granted.

Despite the declared ceasefire, military activity has continued at sea, with US and Iranian forces involved in a series of interceptions and vessel seizures in and around the Strait of Hormuz and nearby waters.

US forces recently seized an Iranian-flagged vessel in the northern Arabian Sea, while Iran has also detained foreign commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Reports also indicate reciprocal interceptions of tankers in regional waters.

Analysts say Trump faces a political and strategic dilemma, balancing domestic opposition to a prolonged conflict with pressure to maintain a tough stance on Iran.

Legal experts also point to alternative authorisations, including the post-9/11 Authorisation for Use of Military Force, which past US presidents have used to justify operations beyond its original scope.

The situation leaves open questions over whether the administration will seek congressional approval, scale back operations, or continue military activity under existing legal frameworks beyond the May 1 deadline.