House Republicans Cancel Vote on Measure to Limit Trump's Iran War Authority

On the afternoon of May 21, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on a Senate-passed resolution that would have directed President Donald Trump to withdraw American forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. The vote never happened. Republican leaders, confronting a handful of GOP defections and a thin margin made thinner by absences, pulled the measure from the floor rather than risk a bipartisan rebuke of the president's war authority [1][2].

"They were afraid it would pass," Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who introduced the resolution, told reporters [3]. Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar issued a joint statement accusing Republicans of having "cowardly pulled a scheduled vote on a War Powers Resolution — legislation that would have passed with bipartisan support" [1].

The resolution is now expected to return to the floor in early June, after the Memorial Day recess [2]. But the delay itself is the story: nearly three months after U.S. and Israeli forces launched massive strikes against Iran, Congress still has not voted to authorize the conflict — and Republican leadership appears determined to prevent a vote that would highlight that fact.

The War That Congress Never Authorized

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched "Operation Epic Fury," a coordinated campaign of nearly 900 strikes in 12 hours targeting Iranian missile sites, air defenses, military infrastructure, and leadership — including a strike that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [4][5]. It was the largest American military deployment to the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, involving approximately 40,000 U.S. troops, multiple carrier strike groups, and more than 200 military aircraft [6].

Iran retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, through which roughly 20% of global petroleum and 20% of liquefied natural gas transits annually [7]. Dubai crude oil prices surged to a record $166 per barrel on March 19 [7]. After more than five weeks of fighting, a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan took effect on April 8, though the Strait remains effectively closed to commercial shipping [7].

Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model / CNN

Data as of May 22, 2026CSV

The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates direct military costs at $27–28 billion through the ceasefire, while CNN reported that a Pentagon estimate of $25 billion was widely considered a lowball figure, with real costs closer to $40–50 billion once rebuilding damaged U.S. installations and replacing destroyed assets are factored in [8]. Fifteen U.S. service members have been killed [6].

Throughout all of this, the Trump administration has not sought and Congress has not granted an Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iran.

The Legal Battle: Article II vs. the War Powers Resolution

The constitutional question at the center of this fight is straightforward: Can the president wage war against a sovereign nation for months without congressional approval?

The Trump administration says yes. On March 2, the White House submitted its formal war powers notification to Congress, invoking not any statutory authorization but the president's inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution as commander in chief [9]. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the administration's position plainly: "Our view is that he has all the authorities he needs under Article 2" [10].

This claim has support among some constitutional scholars. Gene Hamilton, former White House deputy counsel and president of America First Legal, argued that the president has "broad inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend U.S. interests and safety" [11]. Defenders of this position point to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the Framers changed Congress's power from "make war" to "declare war" — a shift that, they argue, was designed to let presidents respond to sudden attacks while reserving to Congress only the authority to authorize full-scale, prolonged conflicts [11][12].

The counterargument rests on the plain text of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over President Nixon's veto in the aftermath of Vietnam. The statute requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities and mandates withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress declares war or passes a specific authorization [13]. That 60-day clock, which started when the White House submitted its March 2 notification, expired on May 1 [14].

The administration's response has been to argue that the ceasefire ended hostilities, resetting the legal framework. Scholar Brian Finucane has described this as a "salami slicing" approach — treating separate military actions as distinct events to avoid triggering the statute's withdrawal requirement [15]. The administration has also characterized ongoing naval operations, including an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, as "separate and distinct" defensive missions that don't trigger War Powers obligations [15].

Critics across the ideological spectrum find these arguments unpersuasive. As the National Constitution Center noted, every president since Nixon has maintained that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but no administration has been willing to put that claim to a definitive judicial test [12].

The Vote Count: Why Leadership Pulled the Plug

The cancelled vote was the latest chapter in a months-long saga of narrowing margins. Three House Republicans have consistently broken with their party on Iran war powers: Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) [2][16].

Source: Congressional Record / News Reports

Data as of May 22, 2026CSV

The trajectory tells the story. On March 4, the first House war powers resolution failed 206–222. A second attempt on April 10 fell 210–218. On May 14, the vote ended in a 212–212 tie — one vote short of passage [16][17]. Each successive vote saw the resolution gain support.

Two factors made the May 21 vote different. First, Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), the one Democrat who had consistently voted against Iran war powers resolutions, signaled he would flip to yes [2]. Second, several Republican absences meant leadership could not guarantee enough "no" votes to defeat the measure. Rather than face the first successful congressional rebuke of Trump's Iran war effort, leadership chose to cancel [1][2].

The pressure campaign on dissenting Republicans has been direct. After Fitzpatrick voted for the war powers resolution in May, Trump told reporters: "He likes voting against Trump. It doesn't work out well" [18]. Despite the threat, Fitzpatrick told Axios he still intended to vote for the measure [18]. Massie, who had voted yes on previous resolutions, was absent from the May 14 vote after losing a primary — though it remains unclear whether his absence was related to political pressure [2].

On the Senate side, the resolution advanced further than ever before. On May 20, the Senate voted 50–47 to discharge a war powers resolution from committee — a procedural milestone that had failed on multiple prior attempts [19]. Four Republican senators crossed party lines: Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) [19]. Cassidy's vote was his first in favor of the measure; he had voted no on every previous attempt. His flip came days after he lost his primary for renomination, raising questions about whether the political cost of defying Trump had been the decisive factor keeping him in line [20].

Historical Echoes: From Tonkin to Tehran

Congress's struggle to assert war powers against a determined executive is not new. The pattern runs through the modern history of American military conflict.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson effectively unlimited authority to escalate in Vietnam on the basis of a disputed naval incident. Congress did not repeal it until 1971, seven years later — and only after the war had become deeply unpopular [21]. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was the legislative response, an attempt to prevent future presidents from waging undeclared wars.

That attempt has largely failed. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed three days after the September 11 attacks, was drafted as a response to al-Qaeda but has since been invoked to justify military operations in at least 22 countries across four presidential administrations [22]. The 2002 Iraq AUMF provided specific authorization for the invasion of Iraq, but remained on the books for over two decades before Congress finally repealed it in 2024 [22].

The closest historical parallel to the current situation may be the aftermath of the January 2020 Soleimani strike. After Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, both chambers passed war powers resolutions to limit further action against Iran. Trump vetoed the measure, and Congress lacked the two-thirds majority to override [23]. The key difference in 2026 is scale: a targeted killing of a single military commander versus a sustained air and naval campaign involving 40,000 troops.

As The Conversation noted, Trump "sidelined Congress's authority over war on Iran — and lawmakers allowed it, extending a 75-year trend" of legislative deference to executive war-making [24].

Who Bears the Risk

The constituencies most directly affected by the conflict have had limited voice in the congressional debate. Approximately 40,000 U.S. troops were deployed to the region for Operation Epic Fury, with forces stationed across multiple bases in the Persian Gulf, Jordan, and aboard carrier strike groups in the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea [6]. Fifteen have been killed and dozens wounded [6]. The U.S. military intercepted Iranian attacks on three Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz on May 7 alone [25].

The economic impact extends far beyond the military. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted roughly one-fifth of global petroleum trade [7]. Tanker traffic through the strait dropped to near zero, and despite the April 8 ceasefire, almost no commercial shipping has resumed [7]. The ripple effects — record oil prices, supply chain disruptions, inflationary pressure — are borne by consumers and economies worldwide.

Gulf allies, particularly the UAE, came under direct Iranian attack during the conflict [26]. The broader regional instability affects allied forces, civilian populations, and diplomatic relationships that took decades to build.

What Comes Next: The Remaining Paths

If the House votes on the resolution after recess in early June and it passes, it would still face a near-certain presidential veto. Overriding that veto requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers — a threshold that appears out of reach given current vote counts [19].

Several alternative mechanisms remain:

Appropriations leverage. The administration is expected to request a supplemental appropriation of up to $100 billion to cover war costs. Because spending bills must originate in the House, this gives Congress a chokepoint: attaching war powers conditions or sunset clauses to the funding [15]. Whether Republican leadership would permit such amendments is another question.

The Barrett AUMF. Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) has introduced a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force that would give Trump legal authority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but with explicit limitations, safeguards, and a congressional role in oversight [9]. This approach — granting authority while constraining it — could attract Republicans who want to support the president's objectives without ceding Congress's constitutional prerogatives.

Senate companion legislation. Even if the current war powers resolution passes the Senate on a final vote, the House remains the bottleneck. A Senate-passed bill could, however, increase political pressure and provide a vehicle for conference negotiations.

Discharge petition. Under the War Powers Resolution's expedited procedures, any member can introduce a resolution and force a series of procedural votes on simple majority, bypassing committee leadership [13]. This mechanism has already been used successfully in the Senate's May 20 vote.

Litigation. Legal scholars have suggested that service members facing deployment, or states bearing costs related to National Guard call-ups, could have standing to challenge the war's legality in court [15]. However, most legal commentators consider a court challenge unlikely to succeed, given the judiciary's longstanding reluctance to adjudicate "political questions" involving war powers [15][27].

The realistic timeline for any of these paths is measured in weeks to months. The appropriations fight will come to a head when the supplemental request arrives, likely in late summer or fall. The war powers resolution could return to the House floor as early as the first week of June.

The Constitutional Stakes

The cancelled vote on May 21 was a procedural maneuver, but it illuminated something larger: the degree to which Congress's war power — the authority the Framers considered important enough to place in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution — has become effectively optional.

Since February 28, the United States has waged its most significant military campaign in two decades. It has deployed tens of thousands of troops, spent tens of billions of dollars, lost American lives, and disrupted global energy markets. None of this was authorized by Congress. The one chamber that came closest to asserting its constitutional role was prevented from voting by its own leadership.

The question now is whether the Memorial Day recess cools the momentum for a war powers vote — or whether members return to Washington in June having heard from constituents who want answers about a war that was never put to a vote.