Trump Administration Says Iran War ‘Terminated’ Ahead of Congressional Deadline

Washington, D.C. — The administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump has asserted that the ongoing military conflict with Iran was effectively “terminated” before the expiration of a 60-day deadline requiring congressional authorization, setting up a contentious legal and political battle in Washington.

Senior administration officials argue that a ceasefire reached in early April brought an end to active hostilities, thereby rendering the requirements of the War Powers Resolution inapplicable. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the absence of recent exchanges of fire signifies that the United States is no longer engaged in active combat operations against Iran.

“The conflict, as defined under the War Powers framework, has ceased,” an official familiar with the administration’s position said. “There are no ongoing hostilities that would trigger the need for congressional authorization.”

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the president must seek approval from Congress within 60 days of committing U.S. forces to armed conflict, or otherwise withdraw those forces. That deadline, tied to the recent escalation with Iran, was expected to fall on May 1, 2026.

However, the administration maintains that the ceasefire effectively halted the legal clock, arguing that the absence of sustained combat operations means the United States is no longer in a state of war requiring legislative oversight.

The position has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including members of both major political parties. Critics contend that a ceasefire does not equate to a formal end of hostilities, particularly if U.S. forces remain deployed in the region or continue enforcement measures such as naval blockades.

“Calling it ‘terminated’ doesn’t make it so,” one congressional aide said. “If U.S. forces are still engaged in activities that could lead to conflict, then Congress has a constitutional role to play.”

Legal scholars have also weighed in, noting that the interpretation of what constitutes “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution has long been a gray area. Some argue that even limited military actions or strategic posturing could fall within the scope of the law, thereby requiring congressional approval.

The debate underscores a broader and longstanding tension between the executive and legislative branches over war-making powers. While presidents have often sought to expand their authority in matters of national security, Congress has periodically pushed back to assert its constitutional prerogative to declare war.

For now, the administration’s stance appears aimed at avoiding an immediate vote in Congress that could either authorize continued operations or compel a withdrawal of U.S. forces. Whether lawmakers will challenge this interpretation through legislation or legal action remains to be seen.

The situation continues to evolve, with implications not only for U.S.-Iran relations but also for the balance of power within the American government.

Trump Administration Faces Backlash Over ‘Terminated’ Iran War Claim

Trump Signals Possible US Troop Reduction in Germany

Washington, D.C., April 30, 2026 — U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated that his administration is reviewing the possibility of reducing American troop levels in Germany, a move that could reshape transatlantic security relations and heighten tensions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance.

Speaking to reporters, Trump confirmed that a decision is under consideration but stopped short of announcing any definitive withdrawal. “We are looking at it,” he said, referring to the U.S. military presence in Germany, which currently stands as Washington’s largest deployment in Europe.

The development comes against the backdrop of growing diplomatic friction between Washington and Berlin, particularly over differing approaches to ongoing geopolitical crises, including the situation involving Iran. German officials have recently voiced criticism of U.S. foreign policy decisions, prompting a sharp response from the White House.

Analysts interpret Trump’s remarks as part of a broader strategy to pressure European allies to align more closely with U.S. positions and increase their defense commitments under NATO. For years, Trump has argued that European countries, including Germany, should bear a greater share of the financial and operational burden of collective defense.

The United States maintains tens of thousands of troops in Germany, where key military installations serve as logistical hubs for operations across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Any significant reduction could have far-reaching implications for NATO’s readiness and the broader security architecture of the region.

Despite the president’s rhetoric, experts caution that a large-scale withdrawal is not imminent. Changes to overseas troop deployments typically require coordination with the U.S. Congress and defense authorities, and may also be influenced by existing international agreements.

Officials in Germany have yet to issue a detailed response to Trump’s latest comments, though previous proposals to scale back U.S. forces have been met with concern in Berlin, where leaders view the American military presence as a cornerstone of European security.

Within NATO, the prospect of reduced U.S. engagement is likely to raise questions about alliance cohesion at a time of heightened global uncertainty. Security analysts warn that even the suggestion of a troop reduction could embolden adversaries and unsettle allies.

For now, the situation remains fluid, with no formal policy change announced. However, Trump’s comments underscore continuing strains in U.S.-European relations and signal that the future of American troop deployments in Germany may be subject to significant review in the months ahead.

Trump Signals Possible US Troop Reduction in Germany

US Congress Moves to Withhold 50% Nigeria Aid Over Insecurity Claims

The United States Congress has advanced a new proposal that could significantly reshape foreign assistance to Nigeria, with lawmakers moving to withhold a portion of funding over concerns tied to ongoing insecurity and reported attacks on civilians.

The House Appropriations Committee, in its proposed Fiscal Year 2027 State Department funding bill, included a provision in Section 7042 stating that 50 percent of all U.S. assistance designated for Nigeria’s central government would be withheld unless the Secretary of State certifies that Nigeria is taking “effective steps” to prevent violence, respond to attacks, and hold perpetrators accountable.

The proposed legislation also outlines additional conditions, requiring Nigeria to strengthen protections for victims of violence, including internally displaced persons, and to actively support the return and rebuilding of affected communities. Beyond the funding restriction, the bill proposes that U.S. assistance to Nigeria should be tied to measurable actions in areas such as prevention of atrocities through early warning systems, promotion of religious freedom, investigation and prosecution of violent groups including militia networks, terrorist organizations, and criminal gangs, as well as the delivery of humanitarian support to conflict-affected populations. It also introduces cost-sharing mechanisms to support stabilization efforts, while placing Nigeria under stricter congressional notification rules that require formal oversight before any funds are released.

READ ALSO:

• Ronaldo Fires Al Nassr to Crucial Win Over Al Ahli
• How Nigerian Army Uncovered Alleged Plot to Overthrow Tinubu
• FG Declares Friday Public Holiday for 2026 Workers’ Day Celebration

The move comes amid heightened debate in Washington over security conditions in Nigeria, particularly incidents involving attacks on rural communities and places of worship. Some U.S. lawmakers have cited these developments as justification for tougher conditions on foreign aid, while others have framed the issue around broader concerns of governance and counterterrorism effectiveness. Recent violent incidents referenced in congressional discussions have further intensified calls for accountability, with supporters of the bill arguing that U.S. security assistance should depend on stronger protection of vulnerable populations and more decisive action against armed groups. While some lawmakers have emphasized alleged targeted violence against religious communities, Nigeria’s government has consistently rejected the framing of the crisis as religious persecution, insisting instead that the insecurity is driven by multiple armed groups, including insurgents, bandits, and criminal networks.

The development also comes amid reports of increased lobbying activity by Nigeria’s government in Washington aimed at shaping congressional perception and preventing aid reductions. However, lawmakers backing the proposal argue that these efforts have not eased concerns, pointing instead to the consolidation of multiple Nigeria-related proposals into a broader accountability bill focused on religious freedom and violence prevention.

Nigeria’s security situation has remained a recurring subject of discussion in U.S. policy circles, particularly regarding how foreign assistance is structured and monitored. While Nigeria continues to receive support in areas such as humanitarian relief, health, and security cooperation, lawmakers are increasingly pushing for conditional frameworks that link funding directly to measurable governance and security outcomes.

The proposed funding restrictions are not yet law. The bill must still pass a full vote in the House of Representatives and later move through the Senate reconciliation process before reaching the U.S. president for final approval. If enacted in its current form, it would mark a significant tightening of oversight on U.S. assistance to Nigeria and introduce stricter conditions tied to security performance and human rights compliance.

US Congress Moves to Withhold 50% Nigeria Aid Over Insecurity Claims