7 House Republicans join Democrats to curb Trump’s war powers in Iran
The House approved the resolution 220-204 as bipartisan opposition to the nearly seven-month conflict continues to grow.
Seven House Republicans joined Democrats late Sept. 15 to approve a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to end unauthorized U.S. hostilities against Iran.
The resolution passed 220-204, with seven Republicans joining all present Democrats in supporting the measure.
The seven Republicans who backed the resolution were Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Iowa Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn.
Mace, Miller-Meeks, and Nunn supported the measure after opposing earlier efforts to restrict Trump’s authority in Iran. Barrett, Davidson, Fitzpatrick, and Massie had previously voted for similar resolutions.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., directs Trump “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran” unless Congress declares war or specifically authorizes military force, according to its text. It includes an exception for U.S. forces needed to defend the nation or an ally from an imminent attack.
Republicans who backed the resolution argued that Congress holds the power to authorize war, not the president. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president generally may engage U.S. forces in hostilities for 60 days without congressional approval, followed in certain cases by a 30-day period for withdrawal. The measure’s supporters contend that both deadlines have expired.
“With the negotiating window closed, sustained combat operations now require congressional authorization,” Nunn, an Air Force veteran, said in a Sept. 15 statement. “Having deployed multiple times and flown over 700 combat hours in the Middle East, I will not support another open-ended war. We can defend Americans, pressure Iran, and pursue peace while ensuring Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility.”
Miller-Meeks, an Army veteran, similarly called on the administration to provide Congress with a strategy for ending the conflict, saying Americans “do not want another forever war.”
“I will not vote to keep our soldiers in an open-ended war, with Iowans paying too much at the pump,” she wrote in a Sept. 16 X post. “The Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions have been defanged. The President needs to present a plan to Congress and the American people for how this ends so we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.”
The vote marked the third time the House has approved a resolution seeking to halt U.S. military action against Iran. The chamber passed comparable measures in June and July, but neither halted military operations.
The war — now in its seventh month — had cost the Pentagon approximately $38 billion through Aug. 1 and could cost an additional $2 billion to $3 billion each month, depending on the intensity of the fighting, the Congressional Budget Office reported Sept. 15. Eighteen U.S. service members have died since the conflict began Feb. 28, and about 50,000 American troops remain deployed across the Middle East, according to The Hill.
Trump predicted Sept. 9 that the war would end “immediately after” the November midterm elections, arguing that Iran was “desperate to try and affect the election” but could not withstand U.S. economic pressure much longer.
>> Trump administration unveils ‘economic D-Day’ sanctions against Iran <<
Massie separately introduced eight articles of impeachment against War Secretary Pete Hegseth Sept. 15, accusing him of violating the War Powers Resolution by continuing hostilities in Iran without congressional authorization.
The Trump administration has maintained that the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief permits the operation. Republican opponents of the resolution have also argued that Iran remains a threat and restricting the President could hinder his ability to protect national security interests.
The latest resolution now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain.







Comments