HJRES-156-119
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsored by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
What it does
This joint resolution would direct the President to comply with the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit on unauthorized military force by terminating Operation Epic Fury — a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran that began February 28, 2026 — and withdrawing U.S. Armed Forces from Iran within 30 days thereafter. It would pause the 60-day clock during any active cease-fire negotiations with Iran. The resolution would preserve the President's authority to maintain forces necessary to defend the U.S. or allies from imminent attack or to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and would not restrict intelligence-sharing activities.
Who benefits
U.S. military service members currently deployed in or around Iran who would be withdrawn from an active combat zone. Members of Congress who support restoring legislative war powers authority. American taxpayers if the operation's costs are reduced. Iranian civilians caught in an active conflict zone. Allies and trading partners affected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which disrupts global oil shipping. U.S. businesses and consumers harmed by energy price volatility stemming from the Strait's closure.
Who is hurt
The executive branch, which would lose discretion to continue the operation without explicit congressional authorization. Israel, which conducted the operation jointly and may rely on continued U.S. military support. U.S. defense contractors and personnel involved in sustaining the operation. Advocates for a more aggressive posture toward Iran's nuclear program, who argue withdrawal could allow Iran to reconstitute its nuclear capabilities. Gulf state allies who may depend on U.S. military presence for regional security.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the sole power to declare war in Congress, and that the President commenced a major military operation — including airstrikes and the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader — without any congressional authorization. They contend the War Powers Resolution's 60-day clock exists precisely for this scenario, and that 13 U.S. service members have already been killed and 381 wounded with no congressional debate or vote. They argue that allowing the executive to wage open-ended war unilaterally sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President has broad constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to respond to threats posed by a state sponsor of terrorism responsible for hundreds of American deaths, and that Iran's nuclear program and closure of the Strait of Hormuz represent urgent national security emergencies that cannot wait for congressional deliberation. They contend the resolution's exceptions — allowing forces to remain to prevent imminent attacks or nuclear acquisition — are vague enough to be unenforceable, and that a legislatively mandated withdrawal timeline could embolden Iran and its proxies, endanger Israel, and destabilize global energy markets at a critical moment.
Constitutional context
The Declare War Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 11) gives Congress the power to declare war, while the Commander-in-Chief Clause (Art. II, §2, cl. 1) gives the President authority over military operations once authorized. The 1973 War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)) implements this balance by requiring congressional authorization within 60 days of committing forces to hostilities. The constitutional validity of the War Powers Resolution itself has never been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court, leaving the boundary between presidential and congressional war powers an open and actively contested question.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to compel a military withdrawal, directly constraining executive discretion; the President retains a veto over the resolution, and the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution's enforcement mechanism has never been judicially settled, leaving compliance ultimately dependent on political pressure rather than enforceable court orders.
Historical precedent
Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in 2019 (S.J. Res. 7) to direct withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Yemen conflict, which passed both chambers but was vetoed by President Trump — illustrating both the mechanism's availability and its practical limits when the President disagrees.