H. Con. Res. 89 (119th)Bill Overview

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

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 23, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This concurrent resolution, submitted under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran unless Congress explicitly authorizes such force by declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.

It clarifies exceptions allowing self-defense, maintenance of defensive troop presence, and retention of forces not engaged in hostilities.

The resolution also states it does not restrict intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities related to threats from Iran, and it does not itself authorize the use of military force.

Passage20/100

High-profile, ideologically charged foreign-policy directive with low fiscal impact but major constitutional and political obstacles, especially in Senate and against executive resistance.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution clearly states a narrow substantive objective and properly references existing War Powers authorities, but provides minimal independent implementation detail, fiscal acknowledgement, definitional clarity, or specific oversight mechanisms.

Contention75/100

Left emphasizes de-escalation and Congressional authority

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersReasserts Congress's constitutional authority over declarations of war.
  • Targeted stakeholdersReduces U.S. involvement in active hostilities with Iran absent new authorization.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay lower U.S. combat casualties and long-term troop commitments.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersConstrains presidential flexibility to respond rapidly to emerging threats from Iran.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCreates operational uncertainty for commanders planning regional missions.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould be perceived by Iran as reduced U.S. deterrence, raising escalation risk.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Left emphasizes de-escalation and Congressional authority
Progressive95%

Likely strongly supportive: sees the resolution as a congressional check on executive military action and a measure to de-escalate U.S.-Iran tensions.

Views the exceptions as reasonable safeguards while prioritizing ending offensive or occupation-style operations.

Leans supportive
Centrist60%

Cautiously favorable but pragmatic: supports congressional oversight and de-escalation while worrying about operational details and regional security implications.

Wants clearer definitions, timelines, and safeguards for allies and force protection.

Split reaction
Conservative15%

Likely opposed: views the resolution as an encroachment on executive authority and a step that could embolden Iran or harm U.S. credibility with partners.

Sees risks to deterrence, flexible military responses, and regional allies' security.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood20/100

High-profile, ideologically charged foreign-policy directive with low fiscal impact but major constitutional and political obstacles, especially in Senate and against executive resistance.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether the Senate will consider and pass a concurrent resolution
  • Presidential legal response or refusal to comply with directive
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Left emphasizes de-escalation and Congressional authority

High-profile, ideologically charged foreign-policy directive with low fiscal impact but major constitutional and political obstacles, espec…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution clearly states a narrow substantive objective and properly references existing War Powers authorities, but provides minimal independent implementatio…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis