The congressional deadline has passed.. Why did the war not stop? | policy

With the expiration of the sixty-day deadline set by the War Powers Act in the United States, questions are rising within Washington about whether military operations will actually stop or whether the course will take a different direction, amid political readings that believe that legal time is not always measured by the same standard within the White House.

Newsweek writer Peter Rove believes that the time limit is not as simple as it seems, explaining that the Donald Trump administration is dealing with the 60 days with legal flexibility, especially after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the timer stopped with the start of the ceasefire, which effectively gives the administration additional time.

Rove points out that announcing the end of Operation Epic Rage does not necessarily mean the end of operations, but rather it may open the door to launching a new operation that recalculates the deadline from scratch, which leaves the scene open to multiple possibilities.

He also points out that the president has an additional period of thirty days to withdraw or reposition forces, which enhances the margin for executive maneuvering.

Despite the objections of Democrats, Rove expects that Republicans, in cooperation with some of their opponents, will seek to formulate a modified authorization for the use of force, which imposes greater oversight through periodic reports to Congress on the conduct of operations, goals and progress, without completely restricting the president’s powers. If this path falters, it is not unlikely that the dispute will reach the Supreme Court of the United States, which is likely to adopt an interpretation that gives the executive authority a broader scope.

Avoid legal restrictions

For his part, the academic and expert in Middle East politics, Mahjoub Al-Zwairi, goes further, considering that the deadline does not mean anything practical for Trump, who – according to his description – is accustomed to reinterpreting political rules and traditions in a way that serves his orientations, citing similar precedents in previous American administrations.

Al-Zwairi explains that describing what is happening as a military operation and not a war gives the president a wider margin to avoid legal restrictions and direct accountability, which enhances his ability to continue or relaunch operations without strict adherence to the time frame.

He confirms that the factor most influencing Trump’s decisions is not the legal or political pressures as much as it is related to economic variables, most notably the rise in energy prices and the cost of living, which may directly reflect on the American electoral mood. In this context, he points to a noticeable decline in the president’s popularity in recent weeks, which may prompt him to reconsider his calculations.

These readings reveal that the expiration of the Congressional deadline does not necessarily mean the end of military operations, but rather may constitute a stage for redefining them legally and politically, in a scene that remains open to the possibilities of escalation or repositioning, according to the balance of power and internal considerations in Washington.