WASHINGTON (7News) — D.C. taxpayers may be confused by back-and-forth between the D.C. City Council and Congress over taxprovision. The city’s financial officer sent a letter to Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, that said the District’s tax laws will not change, despite recent actions by Congress.

7News spoke to director of Tax Policy at the Center for American Progress Corey Husak to explain the complicated tax policy.

“The short answer is, nothing changes. Filing Season can continue as it has been, continue as planned, and according to the laws as we understood them in January,” said Husak.

“If you’ve already filed your taxes, you don’t have to change anything. And if you want to file your taxes, the rules are still the same as they were on the books before,” said Husak.

RELATED | DC Council Chairman talks taxes, budget, bodycams, federal surge

Chief Financial Officer Glen Lee’s revenue estimate issued Friday does not include an estimated $180 million expected this fiscal year from the city’s decoupling law, “due to the uncertainty of the associated revenue as a result of Joint Resolution 142,” according to a released letter.

“The CFO was in a tough spot here. If he agreed with Congress, then businesses and overtime workers will get bigger refunds. But if he agreed with the Mayor and the Attorney General, then families with children and lower income workers would get bigger tax cuts,” said Husak.

SEE MORE | Development of new Commanders stadium scrutinized at DC oversight hearing

“We as District residents can’t control, you know what happens in the courts, what happens in, you know, what Congress does in the future,” said Husak. “But for now, the CFO has said, you know this is, this is a law as it stands, and the law that I’m going to enforce so, you know, file your legally obligated taxes, and maybe in the future, there’ll be a surprise.”

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW

WASHINGTON (7News) — The nation’s capital is just about ready to be transformed into a breathtaking pastel landscape of cherry trees in bloom. The famed blossoms around the Tidal Basin are not only a symbol of spring’s arrival, but also of a long-standing friendship — a gift of more than 3,000 trees from Tokyo, Japan, to the United States in 1912.

So what is considered “Peak Bloom”?

The National Park Service (NPS) defines peak bloom as the time when at least 70% of the Yoshino cherry trees around the Tidal Basin have opened their blossoms. This is the period when the blossoms appear most full and spectacular and most ideal for photos, and soaking up spring’s beauty here in DC.

Because cherry trees respond to the cumulative effects of winter and spring weather, especially daily temperatures, it’s very difficult to predict peak bloom more than about 10 days in advance. Warm spells accelerate blooming; cold snaps slow it down.

Average Timing — What History Shows

Since 1921 overall, national data indicate peak bloom typically fell around early April (April 4), based on historical averages.

Since 1990, the average has kept shifting earlier and earlier. In fact, the last 6 years our peak has occurred in late March.

These shifts reflect how warmer springs have nudged peak bloom earlier over the decades.

Earliest & Latest Blooms on Record

Earliest peak bloom: March 15 — recorded in 1990.

Latest peak bloom: April 18 — recorded in 1958.

Of course, most years fall between those dates, with the last week of March to the first week of April historically being the most consistent window for peak bloom.

Earliest Peak Bloom Washington DC

Recent peak blooms show how variable and climate-dependent the timing can be:

2025: The National Park Service predicted peak bloom between March 28–31 (and confirmed the official peak around March 28).

2024: Peak bloom arrived very early, on March 17, several days ahead of NPS projections — tied for one of the earliest peaks in decades.

These examples demonstrate not only how much each season can differ, but also a trend toward earlier spring blossoms in recent years.

What to Expect for Spring 2026

As of early March 2026, the cherry trees are still dormant. The buds haven’t begun significant growth yet. The weather will become more critical in the weeks leading up to the bloom will be the biggest factor in determining when peak bloom happens in 2026.

Heavy winter cold, as experienced this year, tends to delay bloom compared with recent early springs. In contrast, an early warm stretch could push peak bloom earlier — as long as it doesn’t come with subsequent frost.

Look for the green bud stage first. This is when the buds are small, tight, and green, with no sign of petals yet. Trees are still several weeks from blooming.

Tips for Cherry Blossom Visitors

Plan in the “sweet spot” — peak bloom often lasts a few days to about a week, but weather (rain, wind, heat) can shorten that window.

Visit slightly before or after the predicted peak dates for smaller crowds and extended color. Blossoms can be gorgeous even before 70% bloom or as petals begin falling.

Check NPS updates and First Alert Weather forecasts in late March for tweaked peak bloom dates.

The cherry blossoms of Washington, D.C. remain one of the most iconic harbingers of spring in the U.S., and while exact bloom dates vary year-to-year, history and natural patterns point to late March through early April as your best bet for seeing the Tidal Basin in full floral glory.

WASHINGTON (TNND) — As the war in Iran intensifies across the Middle East, a constitutional battle is unfolding in Washington over a fundamental question: Who has the authority to declare war, Congress or the president?

The debate focuses on the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law designed to prevent years-long military conflicts without congressional approval. Lawmakers passed the measure in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to reclaim authority they believed had drifted too far toward the executive branch.

What Is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution was intended to put limits on a president’s ability to send U.S. troops into combat without Congress signing off.

Under the law, a president can deploy forces into hostilities only if Congress has formally declared war, passed a specific authorization for the use of military force, or the U.S. has been attacked.

The resolution also sets strict deadlines.

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. From there, a 60-day clock begins. If Congress does not approve the military action within that time, troops must be withdrawn — though the law allows an additional 30-day wind-down period.

Some argue the law was crafted to prevent “never-ending wars.” While others say presidents from both parties have routinely stretched and sidestepped its requirements.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The War Powers Resolution is rooted directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power “to declare War.”

Article II, Section 2 names the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

In simple terms, Congress decides whether the country goes to war. The president directs the military once it is engaged.

The framers intentionally split that authority. Their goal was to avoid concentrating too much war-making power in one person — likely a reaction to the monarchy they had just broken away from.

But how that balance plays out in real time is often a legal and political fight. At times, disputes over war powers have reached the courts, though Congress and the executive branch frequently resolve them through political pressure rather than judicial rulings.

A Pattern of Stretching the War Powers Resolution

Essentially, every president since 1973 has pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Resolution rather than fully complying with its original intent. As the Council on Foreign Relations explains, the resolution was designed to “provide presidents with the leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies” but also to **require termination of combat after 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continuation.”

For example:

• Ronald Reagan ordered the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 without prior congressional authorization, later reporting to Congress in a manner “consistent with” the resolution.
• Bill Clinton directed the 1999 NATO air campaign in Kosovo after congressional authorization efforts failed, continuing U.S. engagement beyond the WPR’s typical 60-day reporting window.
• Barack Obama oversaw U.S. participation in the 2011 Libya campaign, arguing that limited strikes did not trigger the full force of the WPR’s time limits.

In more recent years, Donald Trump’s administration has once again brought these issues to the forefront.

War Powers Arguments from the White House

The Trump administration’s principal legal rationale has centered on two points:

Short-term strikes or limited military actions do not always trigger the full 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution, especially when described as defensive, limited in scope, or tied to national security emergencies rather than prolonged hostilities. In some cases, the White House relies on prior Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) or other statutory authorities rather than seeking new congressional approval.

Current Public Opinion on Iran Strikes

Public opinion reflects significant skepticism about the current U.S. military engagement with Iran. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 27% of Americans support the recent U.S. and allied strikes on Iran, while 43% disapprove and 29% remain uncertain.

Another national poll conducted by SSRS for CNN found that nearly 60% of U.S. citizens disapprove of the military actions, and a similar share said that President Trump should seek Congressional authorization for further action.

Beyond polling, internal deliberations in Congress have already begun. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for votes on war powers resolutions that would seek to limit or require authorization for further military action against Iran. Past attempts to pass similar restraints have failed, reflecting deep partisan divisions and the complexities of enforcing the War Powers Resolution.