President Donald Trump offered an unusual definition of the word “ceasefire” on Wednesday, telling reporters that in the Middle East, the term simply means the two sides are “shooting in a more moderate manner” — a characterization that came as U.S. and Iranian forces continued exchanging fire despite a nominal truce that Trump has never received congressional authorization to enforce.
Asked directly by a reporter how he defines a ceasefire, Trump did not hesitate. “Uh, pretty much the way it is,” he said. “It’s a different part of the world. You know, I’d say in that part of the world, ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner. It’s not bad, but it’s true. I mean, a ceasefire there is much different than a ceasefire in other parts of the world.”
The candid remark was notable for what it acknowledged: that the cessation of hostilities the administration has described in the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict is not, by any conventional standard, a full halt to fighting. Since the conflict began on February 28, 2026, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched strikes on Iran, the two sides have repeatedly exchanged fire even during periods described as ceasefires, with each side frequently citing the other’s provocations as justification.
The most recent illustration of that dynamic came the same day Trump spoke. Iranian drones heavily damaged a passenger terminal at Kuwait’s main airport, killing one person and wounding dozens, in the latest back-and-forth attacks that have tested the fragile ceasefire. Trump confirmed the incident at the White House, offering context that was consistent with his broader definition of what the conflict’s pauses in fighting actually look like. “We hit them pretty hard the night before,” he said, explaining that Iran’s strike on Kuwait was a form of reciprocation. “They were reciprocating.”
The conflict has now stretched beyond 90 days, with no formal authorization from Congress and no clear end in sight. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president is required to seek congressional authorization for military hostilities within 60 days or cease the action. Trump did not do so, and the conflict has continued well past that deadline. Trump has attempted to label the conflict a “skirmish” or a “short-term excursion” rather than a war, though U.S. forces have carried out sustained military operations including airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a naval blockade, and repeated strikes on Iranian military assets.
The ceasefire’s durability has been questioned since the very first days it was invoked. Iran’s negotiating team previously threatened to suspend peace talks with the U.S. entirely, saying the ceasefire was being violated “on all fronts,” pointing to Israeli operations in Lebanon and Gaza among other grievances. Meanwhile, the U.S. has conducted additional airstrikes on Iran at multiple points during the nominal ceasefire period, with the administration maintaining each time that the actions were justified responses to Iranian provocations.
Despite this pattern, Trump struck an optimistic tone Wednesday, suggesting that a formal deal remained possible and could come soon. He framed the ongoing shooting as a managed situation rather than a breakdown of negotiations, and portrayed the military pressure — including what he described as the most effective naval blockade in the region in years — as part of the leverage bringing Iran to the table.
The White House has not provided a formal definition of what conditions would constitute the end of the ceasefire period or the beginning of a new phase of hostilities. Trump’s remarks suggest his threshold for what qualifies as a ceasefire is, by design, broad enough to accommodate continued military exchanges — a posture that aligns with the administration’s stated goal of keeping maximum pressure on Iran while simultaneously pursuing a negotiated agreement.
The House passed a war powers resolution 215 to 208 later that same evening, with four Republicans joining Democrats, in a direct challenge to the president’s conduct of the conflict. The bipartisan vote was the first of its kind to clear either chamber since the fighting began. Republican leadership argued the move would “weaken the president’s hand” in the ongoing Iran negotiations, but enough members broke ranks to push the measure through.
The resolution, while largely symbolic given the likelihood of a Senate veto, added to the political pressure surrounding Trump’s unconventional approach to the conflict — one that now, by the president’s own words, includes a definition of ceasefire that leaves considerable room for the guns to keep firing.