The U.S. House of Representatives on the 3rd (local time) passed a War Powers Resolution demanding that President Donald Trump halt additional military action against Iran. The margin was narrow, 215 in favor to 208 against. It is the first time a bill calling for an end to the Iran war, which has lasted more than three months, has cleared a congressional hurdle. All Democratic lawmakers voted in favor, and four Republicans—Thomas Massie, Warren Davidson, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Tom Barrett—broke ranks to support it. Without those four votes, the measure likely would have failed, 211 in favor to 212 against.
The resolution is based on the War Powers Act enacted in 1973. The War Powers Act requires the president to withdraw U.S. forces within 60 days if they are sent into overseas hostilities without congressional consent, or within a maximum of 90 days if an additional 30 days is needed for safe withdrawal. The resolution is a congressional decision, under this law, demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran. President Trump passed the 60-day deadline on May 1. The administration, however, argues that hostilities ended with an April truce, so the 60-day limit does not apply, and that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional.
In fact, in the 53 years since the War Powers Act was enacted, there has never been a case where a war was halted on the basis of this law. Successive administrations have exceeded the timelines set by narrowly interpreting its provisions. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration treated the War Powers Act merely as a nonbinding reporting procedure during the Lebanon deployment. In 1999, the Clinton administration regarded congressional approval of operational funding during the Kosovo air campaign as authorization for military action, exceeding 60 days. In 2011, the Obama administration argued that the Libya airstrikes did not reach the level of hostilities. The truce-based argument advanced by the Trump administration is in the same vein.
Even with the House passage, the measure does not take effect immediately. A Senate vote remains, and experts say that even if it clears the Senate, President Trump is certain to veto it. Overriding a veto requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Given the current distribution of seats, with Republicans the majority in both the House and the Senate, it will be difficult to gather enough votes. No War Powers resolution has ever overcome a presidential veto.
This vote does not put President Trump in a position where he cannot make military choices regarding the Iran war. But every time the administration seeks additional strikes or a prolonged campaign, it must explain to Congress the legal basis, war aims, and expense. Experts said the war's trajectory is now more likely to shift from a full-scale escalation to a low-intensity standoff combining truce management, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, limited retaliation, and back-channel talks.
Apart from its limited legal force, the resolution is expected to impose significant political pressure on the White House. Republican leaders had consistently blocked Democratic efforts to limit the Iran war. The resolution had been likely to pass last month, but the vote was delayed as GOP leaders rallied no votes. However, during the recess, Republican lawmakers returned to their districts and sided with voters weary of the war, upending the math. Massie, the Republican who broke ranks to vote yes, told the Washington Post (WP), "Lawmakers heard voters in their districts, and that gave them confidence to vote yes," adding that leadership's delay strategy backfired by increasing support.
Public opinion over the Iran war has turned against President Trump even in some Republican strongholds. In a New York Times (NYT) and Siena College poll, 64 percent of registered voters said the decision on the Iran war was wrong. Only 30 percent said it was right. A Fox News poll released last month also found that about 6 in 10 voters opposed military action against Iran. In the same survey, 72 percent of respondents said the United States was winning the war. Siena College interpreted this as, "Even as many see the war as being won, more want to stop it, which means fatigue has built up over a prolonged conflict regardless of victory or defeat."
Republican defections were not limited to this vote. Earlier, Senate Republicans killed an $1.8 billion (about 2.72 trillion won) Justice Department fund seen as a reward for Trump associates. They also cut $1 billion (about 1.51 trillion won) earmarked for White House security and a banquet hall from an immigration expenditure bill. Political outlet Politico called the House passage the decisive blow in a recent string of defeats Trump has suffered in Congress.
The parties clashed head-on over the resolution. Gregory Meeks, the Democratic ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the WP, "The United States is trapped in a war the president started thinking only of his pride, without preparing for the consequences," adding, "Diplomacy, not more bombing or bluster, is the only exit." By contrast, Republican leaders including House Speaker Mike Johnson objected that the resolution would weaken the administration's leverage in talks with Iran. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast told Fox News, "Democrats just want a foolish political vote." Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said at a House hearing on the 3rd, "If this resolution passes, Iran will think President Trump cannot strike us." President Trump sought to shift the dynamics by prioritizing back-channel negotiations.
On the 3rd, President Trump said on a New York Post podcast that Iran's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei was involved in end-of-war talks and added, "I have tremendous respect for him," claiming the dispute could be resolved quickly to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But according to the AP, Iran struck Kuwait's airport with a drone that day. U.S. forces also carried out airstrikes on an Iranian ground control station in the Strait of Hormuz, and the two countries' clashes continue sporadically. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned that if disruptions to Middle East energy supplies persist, this year's global growth could fall to 2.1 percent from last year's 3.4 percent.