U.S.-Iran Ceasefire and Negotiations: Assessment and Issues for Congress

Updated April 9May 13, 2026 (IN12678)

OnAn April 7, 2026,8 ceasefire between the United States and Iran remains in place but is on "life support," per President Donald Trump, amid intermittent fighting since May 4 that highlights the potential for a resumption of broader conflict. Moreover, Iran's de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a retaliatory U.S. blockade of Iranian shipping continue, with the compounding of global economic disruptions. Limited U.S.-Iran diplomatic engagement has not, as of May 13, yielded a comprehensive agreement on the issues cited by U.S. officials at the outset of the conflict, such as Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Iran and the United States may weigh each other's ability to withstand the mounting economic costs of the current impasse when considering whether to resume conflict or seek a peace agreement. Congress may consider whether and how to support, reject, or modify Administration approaches to negotiations and any proposed changes to U.S. military operations, diplomatic agreements, sanctions, or engagement with regional partners.

Ceasefire and U.S.-Iran Talks

On April 7, President Donald Trump announced the beginning of a two-week ceasefire. The Pakistan-brokered ceasefire came hours before President Trump's threatened deadline to destroy Iran's bridges and power plants. No text reflecting mutual agreement on ceasefire terms was released, and the two sides' differing public statements on the ceasefire presaged subsequent and ongoing points of tension.

A U.S. delegation led by Vice President JD Vance met with Iranian counterparts in Islamabad on April 11-12, the senior-most diplomatic engagement between the two countries since 1979. President Trump said on April 12 that "most points were agreed to, but the only point that mattered, NUCLEAR, was not," and announced the beginning of a U.S. blockade on Iranian shipping (see below). Previous U.S.-Iran diplomatic engagements during the second Trump Administration (in April-June 2025 and February 2026) stalled over disagreements over Iranian enrichment capabilities and were followed or interrupted by U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on May 5 that negotiations were addressing both Iran's enrichment capabilities as well as its enriched material, a potential target of a possible future U.S. military operation according to media accounts. While Israel is reportedly not directly involved in U.S.-Iran diplomacy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said "the most important objective is the removal of all enriched material from Iran and the dismantling of Iran's enrichment capabilities."

U.S. and Iranian officials have not met since April 12 but have reportedly continued to exchange draft proposals. President Trump wrote on May 5 that "Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement" with Iran. President Trump rejected a subsequent proposal from Iran on May 10, calling it "TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE."

Ongoing Confrontation at Sea: U.S. Blockade and Project Freedom

Iran's disruption of commercial shipping (via threatened and executed attacks) has reduced transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial conduit for energy resources and other commodities to reach global markets.

In announcing the ceasefire, President Trump the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, which may bring a temporary halt to 40 days of conflict. Attacks on and by Iran on April 8, as well as escalated Israeli strikes in Lebanon as of April 9, underscore the fragile and contested nature of the agreement.

During the conflict, Iran has carried out missile and drone attacks against civilian and military targets in multiple countries. The conflict has disrupted regional energy production and maritime and air transit with global economic impacts. The Pakistan-brokered ceasefire came hours after President Donald Trump wrote on social media that "A whole civilization will die tonight" and hours before his threatened deadline to destroy Iran's bridges and power plants.

U.S. and Iranian understandings of the nature and content of the ceasefire appear to differ as of April 9, ahead of a tentative April 11 meeting between senior Iranian and U.S. negotiators, including Vice President JD Vance. Congress may consider whether and how to support, reject, or modify Administration approaches to subsequent negotiations and any proposed changes to U.S. military operations, diplomatic agreements, sanctions, or assistance to regional partners.

Assessment

As of April 9, no text reflecting mutual agreement has been publicly released. Rather, the two sides' public statements on the ceasefire differ and may indicate possible points of tension.

President Trump, in announcing the ceasefire, wrote on social media that the United States had received "a 10 point proposal from Iran" and that it was "a workable basis on which to negotiate." Iran has reportedly produced at least two versions of a 10-point proposal that may differ from each other, as well as from the version referenced by President Trump. The United States in March reportedly transmitted a 15-point proposal, which Iran rejected.

Issues of potential disagreement or contention include

• Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. 15-point plan reportedly restated U.S. demands that Iran dismantle its nuclear facilities, abandon its enrichment program, and give up its highly enriched uranium. By contrast, one version of Iran's 10-point plan reportedly included, per an Iranian source, "acceptance of enrichment." Previous U.S.-Iran diplomatic engagements during the second Trump Administration (in April-June 2025 and February 2026) stalled over such issues and were followed or interrupted by U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran. A White House spokesperson said on April 8 that "The President's red lines, namely the end of Iranian enrichment in Iran, have not changed."
• Strait of Hormuz. Iran's disruption of commercial shipping (via threatened and executed attacks) has reduced transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial conduit for energy resources and related commodities to reach global markets. President Trump, in the week before the ceasefire, expressed ambivalence and strong interest in the status of the Strait. In announcing the ceasefire, he wrote that the cessation of U.S. military action was "subject to … Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz."
• Iran's Foreign Minister wrote that the ceasefire would entail two weeks of "safe passage" through the Strait "via coordination with Iran's Armed Forces." One version of Iran's 10-point plan, per an Iranian source, reportedly included "Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz," which could entail formalizing the tiered wrote that the cessation of U.S. military action was "subject to … Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz." Maritime traffic through the Strait has remained well below pre-conflict levels as Iran has sought to formalize its de facto control over the Strait, including a tiered system of payments that Iran reportedly has charged some vessels.

  The day after the evident failure of U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad, the United States began imposing a "blockade of all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports." CENTCOM reports having redirected 67 commercial vessels and "disabled" 4 Iranian-flagged ships attempting to cross the U.S. blockade line, while allowing 15 "supporting humanitarian aid to pass."

  On May 3, President Trump announced that U.S. forces would launch "Project Freedom," an effort to help commercial ships transit the Strait. Perhaps in response to Project Freedom, Iran conducted what appear to be its first attacks since the ceasefire on May 4, striking targets in the UAE, with additional attacks in subsequent days. On May 5, President Trump wrote that Project Freedom would be "paused" due to requests from "Pakistan and other Countries" and progress toward a U.S.-Iran agreement. U.S. and Iranian forces traded fire on May 7 as U.S. military vessels transited out through the Strait.

  Assessment

  As of mid-May 2026, the United States and Iran might approach diplomatic negotiations with the following considerations:

  • The extent to which the U.S. blockade or resumed military attacks (by the United States, Israel, and/or Arab Gulf states) may reduce Iran's oil exports, put Iran's oil infrastructure at risk, or exacerbate Iran's acute economic crisis.
  • U.S. officials' evaluation of the potential global economic impact of the Strait's prolonged closure or renewed Iranian attacks on Gulf infrastructure.

  Issues for Congress

  Possible issues on which Members of Congress could engage include

  War powers. On May 1, the White House asserted that "hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated." Some Members of Congress continue to introduce measures under the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) to end hostilities with Iran and assert the need for congressional approval. The House and Senate have collectively rejected nine such measures since earlyreportedly has charged for vessels from selected countries to transit the Strait during the conflict.
• Lebanon. U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran also reignited major conflict in Lebanon. In early March, Hezbollah started firing into Israel, and Israel subsequently launched major air and ground operations that have reportedly killed more than 1,700 people and displaced up to 1.2 million, or a fifth of the country, as of April 9. In announcing the ceasefire between Iran, the United States, and "their allies," Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on social media that it would apply "everywhere including Lebanon." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, "The two-weeks ceasefire does not include Lebanon." Israeli military operations continued as of April 9. Iran has reportedly conditioned the April 11 meeting on a ceasefire in Lebanon. Vice President Vance described the disconnect as a "legitimate misunderstanding," echoing other U.S. officials who maintained the ceasefire does not include Lebanon.

Reactions

Oman, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (all of which have been attacked by Iran) welcomed the ceasefire announcement; the United Arab Emirates, in an April 8 statement, said it was "seeking further clarification of the agreement's provisions to ensure Iran's full commitment" to a ceasefire and reopening the Strait. Officials from the European Union, Russia, and China (which reportedly encouraged Iran to agree to the ceasefire) reacted positively.

In Congress, multiple Member statements welcomed the ceasefire: one Senator applauded what he described as President Trump's "Peace Through Strength leadership," while another expressed relief at the ceasefire but called for "a real accounting of what President Trump's war achieved."

Issues for Congress

Possible issues on which Members of Congress could engage include

• War powers. Some Members in the House and Senate have indicated their intention to introduce measures under the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) to, as one Member put it, "end this conflict permanently." Four similar measures were rejected by the House and Senate in March 2026.
• Sanctions. President Trump wrote on April 8 that "We are, and will be, talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran." Members could seek to block or support sanctions relief, including via measures to condition or mandate congressional review of executive branch actions related to sanctions on Iran (H.R. 2012, H.R. 2570).
• Supplemental appropriations. Per one April 7 media report, the Administration is reportedly preparing to request from Congress as much as $100 billion in additional funding related to the conflict with Iran.
Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules W. Hurst III testified on May 12 that "our operational cost estimate" of $29 billion does not include damage to U.S. installations; in testimony two weeks earlier, he said that a supplemental appropriations request "will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict."
• Oversight. Any agreement "relating to the nuclear program of Iran" would trigger congressional review requirements under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (P.L. 114-17). More broadly, Members may engage with the Administration regarding the conduct of the conflict and its ramifications for Iran; for U.S. cooperation with Israel and other Middle East partners; for the U.S. and global economies; and for U.S. military readiness, tactics, and strategies.