H.Con.Res. 89House concurrent resolution · 119th CongressIn the SenateInternational Affairs

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.

Sponsored byPramila JayapalD-WA-7Introduced Apr 23, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 23, 2026) Received in the Senate and on Foreign Relations.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Apr 23, 2026

This concurrent resolution directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran or any part of its government or military unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.

The resolution specifies that it shall not be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself, its Armed Forces, its diplomatic facilities, or allied states from imminent attack.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On Agreeing to the Resolutiondecisive vote

    House · Jul 23, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    214208

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • J Streetno position stated
    …- Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. H.Con.Res.89 - Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

6 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
24
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea22d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
21
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea21d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
8
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea22d ago
Worth noting the sponsor list on this one — it's less partisan than the coverage suggests.
8
avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Nay25d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
3
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea18d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
1
magnusgrimmettCO-3voted Nay14d ago
When would this get to the senate?
Your position on H.Con.Res. 8943% Yea · 23 VoteWire users