HRES-922-117
Pursuant to section 5 of H. Res. 1499, and the motion offered by Mr. Hoyer, the following bills passed under suspension of the rules: H.R. 4601, as amended; H.R. 4772, as amended; H.R. 4899; H.R. 5943, as amended; H.R. 7158, as amended; H.R. 8203; H.R. 9308; and S. 3825; and the following resolutions were agreed to under suspension of the rules: H. Res. 744, as amended; and H. Res. 922, as amended. (consideration: CR H8696-8700; text: CR H8699)
Sponsored by Sara Jacobs (D-CA)
What it does
This resolution would formally express the House of Representatives' condemnation of the deliberate starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. It would also call on the U.S. government to make diplomatic efforts a priority in identifying and addressing situations where food deprivation is used as a weapon, and to ensure that U.S.-supported security operations minimize harm to civilian food sources and livelihoods. As a resolution, it does not carry the force of law and does not appropriate funds or create new legal obligations.
Who benefits
Civilian populations in active conflict zones who are at risk of deliberate food deprivation, particularly in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe where conflict-related food insecurity has been documented. International humanitarian organizations that advocate against the use of starvation as a war tactic may gain political support from a formal U.S. congressional statement. Diplomatic and foreign policy agencies may receive clearer congressional direction to prioritize this issue in negotiations and international forums.
Who is hurt
No domestic group faces a direct material harm from this resolution. State and non-state actors that have been accused of using food deprivation as a military tactic — such as certain governments or armed groups in active conflicts — could face increased U.S. diplomatic pressure as a result of the resolution's directives. Some foreign policy analysts argue that non-binding resolutions can create diplomatic friction without providing tools to resolve the underlying problem, potentially complicating broader bilateral relationships.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the deliberate starvation of civilians is a war crime under international humanitarian law, and that a formal congressional statement sends a clear, unified signal that the United States stands against this practice. They contend that naming and condemning specific tactics through official resolutions strengthens the hand of U.S. diplomats in multilateral forums such as the United Nations Security Council, where food security in conflict has been an active agenda item. Supporters also argue that directing U.S. security assistance to account for civilian food access addresses a gap in how military aid is evaluated, potentially reducing unintended harm to vulnerable populations. They note that even non-binding resolutions carry symbolic weight that can shift international norms over time.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution lacks enforcement mechanisms and does nothing concrete to stop the use of starvation as a weapon, making it largely symbolic while consuming legislative time and resources. They contend that directing U.S. diplomatic efforts through a resolution — rather than through legislation with specific mandates and funding — may create the appearance of action without producing measurable outcomes for affected civilian populations. Some critics argue that broadly worded directives to prioritize diplomatic efforts could interfere with the executive branch's constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, or could complicate nuanced bilateral relationships where the U.S. has competing strategic interests. Others suggest that existing international law, including the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions, already prohibits these practices, making a separate congressional statement redundant.
Constitutional context
As a House resolution (H. Res.), this measure expresses the sense of the House and does not require Senate passage or presidential signature, meaning it does not carry the force of law. The foreign policy provisions it touches implicate the Constitution's Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2), the Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), and the President's Commander-in-Chief and Reception Clause authorities (Art. II, Sec. 2-3). The resolution's call for executive diplomatic action sits within the longstanding tension between congressional and executive foreign policy authority. Relevant cases include Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), which affirmed broad executive power over diplomatic recognition, and Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which addressed the scope of executive authority in national security contexts. Because the resolution is non-binding, it does not directly alter the legal balance of power between branches.
Checks and balances
This resolution does not shift legal authority between branches. It expresses the House's position and calls on — but does not legally compel — the executive branch to prioritize certain diplomatic efforts. The executive branch retains full discretion over how, when, and whether to act on the resolution's directives. Congress retains its existing oversight and appropriations tools to follow up if it chooses to do so.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed similar sense-of-Congress resolutions addressing international humanitarian crises and war crimes, including resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria (H. Res. 121, 2017) and recognizing atrocities in various conflict zones. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2417 (2018), which formally recognized the link between armed conflict and food insecurity and condemned the use of starvation as a method of warfare.