Four Republican members of the House of Representatives joined Democrats once again to support limits on President Donald Trump’s ability to wage war against Iran.
The resolution passed on Thursday with a vote of 214 to 208, coming almost a week after three US military personnel were killed in an Iranian attack on a base in Jordan.
A similar resolution in the Senate failed to pass. The vote was 47 to 49, with two Republicans who had backed an earlier version choosing not to vote this time.
Earlier resolution never reached Trump’s desk
Back in June, both the House and Senate had already passed a resolution asking Trump to get approval from Congress before launching more attacks. But because that resolution was a “concurrent resolution,” it never actually went to Trump for his signature.
Even if it had been a joint resolution, which would have required Trump’s approval, he could have simply vetoed it. Overturning a presidential veto needs a two thirds majority in both the House and Senate, a high bar to clear.
Democrats say the vote sends a message
Despite these limits, House Democrats say this latest vote still matters. They see it as a clear signal that lawmakers disagree with how Trump is handling the war, which has flared up again after a ceasefire collapsed in early July.
Also Read | Nicolás Maduro’s June 2027 US trial date fixed; defence to challenge indictment
The US and Iran have now exchanged attacks for 12 days straight, and some analysts fear things could escalate even further. Trump has repeatedly hinted at strikes on civilian infrastructure and even a possible ground invasion.
Representative Pramila Jayapal spoke about the vote on the House floor on Wednesday, saying, “This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people, and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war.”
She added, “This war must end.”
What the Constitution says about war powers
Also Read | What’s in Trump’s Saudi Nuclear deal? The Uranium clause explained
Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to formally declare war, something that hasn’t happened since World War II. Presidents are allowed to send troops into action without that declaration only when acting in self defence against an immediate threat.
Trump has argued that Iran’s actions since 1979 amount to exactly that kind of threat. However, many constitutional law experts disagree with this reasoning.
The War Powers Act and a disputed timeline
The War Powers Act of 1973 requires presidents to get approval from Congress within 60 days of sending troops into conflict. The war between the US, Israel and Iran began on February 28. But the Trump administration claims that hostilities officially “ended” during a brief pause in the fighting that happened in April, which would reset that 60 day clock.
Also Read | Trump says Iran will ‘pay many times over’ after deaths of US troops
Several war powers experts and members of Congress argue this is simply a way to dodge the law. The administration has since told Congress again that fighting has resumed, right before the most recent wave of attacks began.
Reactions from watchdog groups
David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight, spoke about the House vote in a statement on Thursday. He said it “reaffirmed what people across the country have been saying all along: We want no part in an illegal war.”
He continued, “Contrary to the administration’s claims, the latest hostilities are not a new war. We’re now months past the constitutional deadline for the administration to end this unauthorised war.”
Janovsky also pointed out that just two days earlier, on Tuesday, the House had approved a massive $1.15 trillion defence bill. That bill includes tens of billions of dollars more to fund the war, and the Senate still hasn’t voted on it.
He summed up his concerns by saying, “If Congress is serious about bringing an end to this prolonged conflict, it must also refuse the administration’s request to fund it.”
FAQS
1.Did Republicans support this resolution?
Yes. Four Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in voting for the resolution.
2.What happened in the Senate?
A similar resolution in the Senate failed. It got 47 votes in favour and 49 against, falling short of passing.
