H. Con. Res. 95 (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 30, 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 directs the President, under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran unless Congress issues a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.

It preserves the President’s ability to defend the United States, its forces, diplomatic facilities, and allied states from imminent attack, allows defensive troop presence in the region, and exempts forces not engaged in hostilities.

The resolution also states it does not affect intelligence activities or itself authorize the use of military force.

Passage25/100

High controversy on war powers and Iran, limited fiscal impact but strong executive-branch implications reduce overall prospects.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is clear in purpose and correctly anchors itself to the War Powers Resolution, but it provides limited operational detail, fiscal acknowledgment, and accountability measures within the text.

Contention70/100

Progressives emphasize restoring congressional war powers and de-escalation.

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 stakeholdersReduces the chance of escalation into a wider military conflict with Iran.
  • Targeted stakeholdersReasserts Congressional authority over war-making under the War Powers Resolution framework.
  • Targeted stakeholdersLikely reduces short-term operational military spending and some contractor expenses tied to combat operations.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould constrain military commanders' flexibility to respond rapidly to emerging Iranian threats.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce perceived U.S. deterrence and thereby encourage adversary or proxy actions.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould complicate coordination and burden-sharing with regional allies relying on U.S. military presence.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize restoring congressional war powers and de-escalation.
Progressive90%

Likely supportive as a reassertion of congressional war powers and a measure to prevent escalation with Iran.

Sees it as a move to limit open-ended military engagements and prioritize diplomacy and oversight.

Leans supportive
Centrist60%

Cautiously favorable to restoring legislative oversight but concerned about practical defense and deterrence implications.

Will weigh the clarity of exceptions and implementation details before full support.

Split reaction
Conservative10%

Likely opposed as an unwarranted limitation on the President’s commander-in-chief authority and a constraint on deterrence.

Views it as potentially emboldening Iran and reducing U.S. strategic flexibility.

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 likelihood25/100

High controversy on war powers and Iran, limited fiscal impact but strong executive-branch implications reduce overall prospects.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Practical enforceability under War Powers Resolution text
  • Executive branch compliance or legal challenge risk
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

Progressives emphasize restoring congressional war powers and de-escalation.

High controversy on war powers and Iran, limited fiscal impact but strong executive-branch implications reduce overall prospects.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is clear in purpose and correctly anchors itself to the War Powers Resolution, but it provides limited operational detail, fiscal acknowledgment, and accountability m…

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