The US Congress wants Trump to "hit the brakes," House passes resolution demanding a halt to military actions against Iran.
As the US-Iran conflict continues to escalate, the Trump administration faces new political resistance in Washington.
On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution based on the War Powers Act with only a six-vote margin, calling for the US to stop military actions against Iran without Congressional authorization and withdraw US troops involved in hostile actions against Iran. Four Republican lawmakers defected and joined the Democratic camp.
This is the second time recently that the US House has passed a similar resolution. The voting results show that as the US-Iran conflict continues and the risk of spillover increases, opposition to Trump is growing within Congress. However, since the resolution is likely to be rejected by the White House and does not have the immediate effect of forcibly ending military actions, its greater significance lies in sending a political warning to the Trump administration rather than immediately withdrawing the US from the Iranian battlefield.
214 to 208, four Republican lawmakers defect
The resolution, proposed by Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, mainly calls for US armed forces to withdraw from hostilities with Iran unless Congress formally declares war or passes a law authorizing military actions.
The final vote was 214 in favor, 208 opposed. In addition to Democratic representatives, four Republican representatives—Tom Barrett from Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson from Ohio, and Thomas Massie from Kentucky—also voted in favor.
Media noted that this is another resolution passed by the Republican-controlled House to restrict Trump’s military actions against Iran, constituting another symbolic rebuff of the President’s war powers.
This is not the first time Congress has tried to halt Trump’s military actions against Iran.
Earlier in June, the House passed a similar war powers resolution by 215 to 208, calling for the withdrawal of US forces involved in hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. Subsequently, the Senate passed a similar resolution by 50 to 48.
However, the Trump administration has consistently refused to accept these congressional resolutions, arguing that such measures infringe on the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief.
“Symbolic” resolution, unlikely to immediately stop the war
In terms of actual effect, this House vote does not mean that US military actions against Iran will immediately stop.
US media pointed out that even if such war powers resolutions pass Congress, they often face refusal by the executive branch and legal controversies. The Trump administration has already questioned the legitimacy of similar resolutions.
More importantly, Congress has not yet formed a political consensus strong enough to forcibly terminate military action. Republicans still control the House, and Trump maintains significant political influence within the party. In this vote, only four Republican representatives joined the Democratic camp, indicating that although cracks have appeared, the Republican party as a whole still has not shifted to oppose Trump’s Iran policy.
Therefore, the focus of the market and Washington political circles is not whether this resolution can immediately end the war, but rather the political signal it sends: as the war continues, casualties rise, and regional conflict spills over, the Trump administration faces increasing political pressure within Congress.
The Iran war is becoming Trump’s domestic political risk
This vote occurred as US-Iran military conflict continues.
Reports say the US recently launched military strikes against Iran, and Iran retaliated against US military bases in the Middle East. Meanwhile, attacks by Houthi militants on Saudi-related oil tankers have expanded the risk to the Red Sea shipping corridor, prompting the Trump administration to threaten larger-scale punitive military actions.
This means that conflicts, originally centered on Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets, are now linked with multiple battlegrounds in the Middle East and involve energy and shipping security issues.
For US domestic politics, the longer the war lasts, the harder it becomes for Trump to characterize the military action as a short-term, limited operation. Opposition in Congress has therefore gradually spread from the Democratic camp to within the Republican party.
US media pointed out that as Trump continues airstrikes against Iran, opposition in Congress is growing. At the same time, Republican lawmakers are advancing a $95 billion military budget and a $1.15 trillion defense spending bill, reflecting a contradictory situation in US domestic politics: On one hand, some lawmakers are trying to restrict unauthorized presidential military actions; on the other, Congress continues to fund broader US military and defense spending.
The “war powers” dispute between Congress and the White House escalates again
The core of this dispute is not just whether to continue military action against Iran, but the constitutional allocation of war powers between the president and Congress.
The US president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to direct the military; but according to the Constitution, the power to formally declare war and provide long-term authorization for war belongs to Congress. After the Vietnam War in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act to try to restrain the president from long-term military action without congressional authorization.
The Trump administration believes the White House has executive power to take military action when necessary and has questioned Congress’s attempts to restrict the president via war powers resolutions.
Democratic lawmakers believe the Trump administration has exceeded the boundaries of presidential executive power by advancing military action against Iran without formal congressional authorization.
Thus, the House vote is not just opposition to specific Iran policies but again pushes the constitutional dispute of "who has the power to start war" into the spotlight.
Standoff between White House and Congress, more complex outlook for Iran conflict
Previously, Congress has passed similar measures to restrict war powers but did not actually end US military actions. Now, the House has passed another resolution which, although unlikely to directly change the situation on the battlefield in the short term, further institutionalizes the confrontation between the Trump administration and Congress.
If the conflict continues to expand, or if US casualties, energy prices, and shipping risks increase further, there may be more calls in Congress to limit presidential military powers.
For financial markets, this House vote itself does not necessarily mean the US will immediately withdraw from the Iran battlefield, but it increases the uncertainty of US policy direction: The Trump administration may continue military action, or it may seek a new balance between military pressure, domestic politics, and diplomatic negotiations.
Against the backdrop of the US-Iran conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea shipping, and global energy supplies, the domestic US political contest over “whether to continue the war” is becoming another key variable that impacts the Middle East situation and risk premiums in the energy market.
Risk warning and disclaimerThe market contains risks, investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investments made based on this article are at your own risk.