Taiwan has been awaiting approval of a U.S. weapons package that Reuters previously reported could be worth as much as $14 billion. The issue has drawn increased attention after President Donald Trump said earlier this month that he had not yet decided whether to authorize the proposed sale following talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

Questions over the status of the package intensified after Acting U.S. Navy Secretary Hung Cao told a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on Thursday that arms sales to Taiwan had been paused to ensure sufficient munitions were available for Operation Epic Fury, the military campaign launched by the United States and Israel against Iran in February.

A source familiar with the matter disputed that characterization, saying arms transfers to Taiwan require years of planning, review and implementation and are unrelated to the conflict with Iran.
“These sales take years to process and are unrelated to Operation Epic Fury,” the source said, adding that the U.S. military maintained adequate munitions inventories to support the administration’s strategic objectives.

The comments come as Washington seeks to balance support for Taiwan’s defense capabilities with broader management of relations with Beijing. China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has repeatedly opposed U.S. arms sales to the island, urging Washington to halt such transfers.

The United States, while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan, is obligated under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide the self-governed island with the means to defend itself.

Following Trump’s meeting with Xi, U.S. officials reiterated that Washington’s policy toward Taiwan remains unchanged.

Taiwan’s government said on Friday it had not received any information indicating delays to pending U.S. arms sales.

Taipei rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, maintaining that only the island’s people can determine their future.

A senior administration official said the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 had “terminated” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since a two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.

The position builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told lawmakers during Senate testimony earlier Thursday that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock mandated under the law.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Hegseth said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of a president notifying lawmakers of hostilities or the administration must end the campaign, with a possible 30-day extension allowed for withdrawal.

That deadline falls on Friday for Trump’s Iran operation.The White House has not sought formal approval from Congress, even as U.S. naval operations continue in the Gulf and Iran maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz while Washington enforces a blockade aimed at preventing Iranian oil exports.

Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the administration is legally required to obtain congressional approval and that the ceasefire does not suspend the statute.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republicans to back a Senate effort to halt military action without authorization, said the deadline was binding and not optional.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” Collins said, adding that any further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

The Senate on Thursday rejected, for a sixth time, a Democratic-led measure seeking to end U.S. military action in Iran absent congressional approval, allowing Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump as the legal deadline approached.

Some GOP lawmakers who had supported limited strikes against Tehran have increasingly signaled they want Congress to reassert its constitutional authority if the operation becomes prolonged.The administration’s interpretation has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue the War Powers Resolution contains no mechanism allowing the 60-day period to be paused because of a temporary ceasefire.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said the administration’s argument marked a significant expansion of prior executive branch interpretations of the law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.Previous administrations have often argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the law.

But legal analysts say the sustained U.S. military campaign against Iran, including naval deployments and direct strikes, would be difficult to classify under that narrower interpretation.

Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he had advised administration officials to transition the current operation into a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and defending maritime navigation.

He suggested a follow-up mission could be framed as a self-defense operation rather than a continuation of the existing war authorization timeline.“That to me solves it all,” said Goldberg, now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The dispute highlights the long-running constitutional struggle between Congress and the presidency over control of U.S. military engagements, a conflict that has persisted since lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War era to curb unilateral presidential war-making.

Citing U.S. officials familiar with the matter, the report said Trump concluded during a White House Situation Room meeting on Monday that both resuming bombing campaigns and fully stepping back from the conflict carried greater risks than maintaining a naval squeeze on Iran’s oil exports and shipping routes.

According to the report, Trump believes Iran is not negotiating in good faith and wants Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years while accepting strict long-term restrictions on its nuclear activities. Officials said the administration views the blockade as a way to intensify pressure without immediately reopening large-scale military operations.

Trump signaled frustration publicly on Wednesday, writing on his Truth Social platform that Iran “can’t get their act together” and warning Tehran to “better get smart soon.”

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal.They better get smart soon!” Trump posted, alongside an image carrying the caption “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”The reported strategy would rely on the U.S. Navy continuing efforts to restrict vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports, further tightening pressure on oil exports that are central to Iran’s economy.

Analysts say the approach risks extending instability around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy transit routes.Oil markets reacted sharply to reports of a prolonged blockade, with Brent crude rising to a one-month high above $114 a barrel on concerns over sustained supply disruption and continued uncertainty over shipping through the Hormuz corridor.

The White House has not formally announced a policy shift, and Iranian officials have not publicly responded to the Wall Street Journal report.The decision suggests Washington may be preparing for a prolonged standoff in which active fighting remains limited but diplomacy remains frozen, leaving the conflict in what analysts describe as a “no-deal, no-war” phase.