WASHINGTON – Oil prices surged Friday as the Trump administration signaled its intent to bypass congressional authorization for ongoing military operations in Iran, arguing that a fragile ceasefire has legally “terminated” the hostilities that triggered a statutory deadline for troop withdrawal.
The legal maneuver puts the White House on a collision course with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a landmark piece of legislation designed to check executive power by requiring the president to withdraw U.S. forces within 60 days of deploying them into hostilities, unless Congress explicitly authorizes the action.
The intersection of constitutional authority and Middle Eastern volatility has immediate consequences for global energy markets. As the U.S. maintains a blockade on Iranian ports and Tehran threatens to shutter the Strait of Hormuz-the world’s most critical oil chokepoint-investors are pricing in the risk of a renewed escalation.
The War Powers Deadline
The current crisis began on February 28, when the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes against Iranian targets. President Donald Trump formally notified Congress of the deployment on March 2, initiating the 60-day countdown that set a hard deadline for May 1.
Under the 1973 law, passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, the executive branch must either secure a formal declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization from Congress to maintain troops in a conflict zone beyond the 60-day window. The statute, codified as the War Powers Resolution, also requires regular reporting to lawmakers on the scope and purpose of any such operations.
Despite the approaching deadline, the administration has not sought a 30-day extension, which is permitted under the law to allow for an orderly withdrawal. Instead, officials are arguing that the legal clock has stopped entirely.
“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated,” an administration official told MSNow.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth advanced this position during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, asserting that a ceasefire reached on April 7 effectively paused the war, thereby nullifying the requirement for congressional approval. Several committee members challenged that interpretation, noting that U.S. forces remain deployed in a declared area of hostilities and that economic blockades and naval interdictions are typically treated as part of an ongoing military campaign.
The dispute sets up a potential institutional clash between Congress and the White House over who ultimately decides when “hostilities” have ended-a term the law leaves undefined and that previous administrations of both parties have interpreted narrowly.
Energy Markets and the Hormuz Chokepoint
The legal uncertainty in Washington is fueling volatility in crude oil markets. On Friday, July Brent futures rose 1.11% to $111.63, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures for June gained 0.45% to $105.54.
This follows a period of extreme fluctuation; the June Brent crude contract recently hit a four-year high of $126.41 before retreating to settle at $114.01 upon its expiration Thursday.
The price sensitivity is driven largely by the strategic deadlock over the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption passes through this narrow waterway. Tehran has explicitly refused to ensure the openness of the Strait unless the U.S. lifts its current blockade of Iranian ports.
- U.S. Position: The blockade will remain in place until Tehran agrees to a comprehensive new nuclear deal, alongside verifiable limits on its ballistic missile program and regional proxy activity.
- Iranian Position: Port blockades must be lifted before the Strait of Hormuz is guaranteed as an open transit route, and Tehran insists any new accord must recognize its right to civilian nuclear activity.
Traders and diplomats alike view the standoff as a test of whether sanctions, naval deployments and legal maneuvering in Washington can be contained without spilling over into direct confrontation that could choke off a major artery of global energy supply.
Prospects for Escalation
Despite the current ceasefire, military preparations on both sides suggest the peace is tenuous. Reports indicate that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has developed a contingency for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes intended to break the current diplomatic stalemate between Washington and Tehran.
Tehran has signaled that any renewal of U.S. attacks would be met with asymmetric responses. A senior official from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned of “long and painful strikes” targeting U.S. positions across the region.
The administration continues to maintain that the absence of direct fire since April 7 justifies its position that the 60-day clock no longer applies, even as the U.S. maintains an active blockade and military posture in the region. Legal experts note that the same argument was used in past conflicts to narrow congressional oversight, including debates over drone campaigns and limited airstrikes, raising concerns on Capitol Hill about a precedent for open-ended engagements without fresh authorization.
Lawmakers from both parties are weighing options that range from demanding a new authorization for the use of military force to seeking a formal vote compelling compliance with the War Powers Resolution. Any such move would test whether Congress is prepared to assert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace at a moment when financial markets, allies and adversaries are closely watching signals from Washington.
For now, oil traders, energy importers and regional partners are operating in a climate of legal and strategic ambiguity-with the White House defending its reading of the law, Iran testing the limits of naval brinkmanship, and the War Powers deadline passing without a formal request for an extension from Congress.
