← Laws

Federal · U.S. House · H.Con.Res. 89

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

119th Congress

Plain-language summary

A plain-language summary hasn't been written yet. Read the full text at the official source.

Official bill page ↗

Constitutional baseline

AI-drafted, not yet reviewed

What the bill does

This concurrent resolution, which passed the House on July 23, 2026, invokes section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. It directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force explicitly authorizes them. It states that it does not prevent defense of the United States, its forces, its diplomatic facilities, or allied states from imminent attack. It also does not prevent a defensive troop presence in the region or force removal of forces not engaged in hostilities against Iran. Separate provisions preserve intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing, and state that the resolution does not authorize the use of military force. The text given is the version engrossed in the House. It does not show whether the Senate has concurred or whether the measure would be presented to the President.

Provisions it touches

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

The resolution refers to a declaration of war or specific authorization as the only basis for continued hostilities against Iran, which engages Congress's war-declaring power.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”

The resolution directs the President to remove forces from hostilities, which raises the scope of the President's authority over the deployment and use of the armed forces.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3
“Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States”

The measure is a concurrent resolution requiring both Houses, and the text provided does not mention presentment to the President, so this clause bears on how it could take effect.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 2
“If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill”

This sets the veto-override threshold that applies when a measure is presented and disapproved, and it frames the process the resolution may or may not go through.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”

The resolution relies on a statutory mechanism, section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to carry Congress's war powers into execution.

Article I, Section 1
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

Whether a directive adopted by both Houses without the presentment process is an exercise of legislative power is central to how the measure is analyzed.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

Congress's authority over the regulation of the armed forces is one textual basis a reader might cite for directing where and whether forces are used.

Where it aligns

  • The resolution invokes Congress's textual power to declare war, in that it ties continued hostilities against Iran to a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.
  • It states expressly that it does not itself authorize the use of military force, so it does not purport to exercise the war-declaring power in a way that grants the President new authority.
  • Its rules of construction leave room for defensive action against imminent attack and for a defensive troop presence, which reflects the distinction between the President's role as Commander in Chief and Congress's role in authorizing war.

Where it may be in tension

  • Can a concurrent resolution, which the text provided does not show being presented to the President, bind the executive branch in light of the presentment requirement for every "Order, Resolution, or Vote" requiring the concurrence of both Houses?
  • Does a directive to remove forces from hostilities intrude on the President's authority as Commander in Chief over the conduct of military operations, or does it fall within Congress's authority over war and the regulation of the armed forces?
  • Is the line between hostilities and permitted defensive action clear enough to apply, given the exceptions for defending against imminent attack and for a defensive troop presence?
  • Would a court hear a dispute over compliance, or would questions of standing or political-question doctrine apply? The text here does not say how, or whether, the resolution would be enforced.

Why this might still serve the public

  • If the resolution takes effect without presentment and is treated as binding, it departs from the ordinary route by which measures requiring both Houses become effective. A reader might still see a public benefit, because a concurrent resolution offers a prompt way for both Houses to record a position on ongoing hostilities and puts the question of authorization before Congress.
  • The resolution states that its effect depends on the absence of a declaration of war or specific authorization. This may serve the public by clarifying who is accountable for continuing an armed conflict and by prompting a recorded congressional decision.

Article V: Not indicated: the resolution does not propose to change the constitutional text, and nothing in it appears to require an amendment under Article V. Whether the measure could be carried out as written without presentment is a separate question about existing constitutional provisions, not one that calls for an amendment.

How different approaches read it

For contested questions only. Each reading is described in its own terms; none is presented as correct.

Can Congress direct the President to end hostilities by concurrent resolution without presenting it to the President?

Original meaning

A reader focused on original meaning would start from the text of the presentment clause, which reaches every order, resolution, or vote requiring both Houses, and ask whether a directive with binding legal effect falls within that language and its stated exception only for adjournment.

Precedent

A reader focused on precedent would look to INS v. Chadha, which addressed a one-House legislative veto and the requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and ask how far its reasoning extends to a concurrent resolution invoking a statutory mechanism.

Evolving interpretation

A reader focused on evolving interpretation would consider how the practice of Congress and the executive under the War Powers Resolution has developed over time, and whether shared understandings of the balance between the branches in war-related matters have changed the analysis.

Does a directive to remove forces from hostilities infringe the President's Commander in Chief authority?

Original meaning

A reader focused on original meaning would weigh the text giving Congress the power to declare war and to regulate the armed forces against the text vesting command in the President, and ask how the founding generation understood the division between authorizing war and directing operations.

Precedent

A reader focused on precedent would look to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and the framework of executive power at its lowest ebb when it conflicts with Congress's expressed will, and ask whether that framework applies to a directive of this kind.

Evolving interpretation

A reader focused on evolving interpretation would look at modern practice in which forces have been used abroad under varying claims of authority, and ask how that practice informs the balance between the branches today.

Cases cited

Each case was found in CourtListener under the same name. Cases that couldn't be verified were removed.

What this analysis can't tell you

This analysis rests on the engrossed House text and the summary of the War Powers Resolution that the bill itself provides. The text of 50 U.S.C. 1544(c) was not supplied, so I cannot say how that provision is worded or how it interacts with the presentment requirement. I also cannot tell whether the Senate has concurred, whether the resolution would be presented to the President, or how the executive branch would respond. The factual circumstances of any hostilities with Iran are not in the bill text, so I cannot judge whether particular operations would count as hostilities or as permitted defensive action. Whether a court would hear a dispute over the resolution is uncertain and depends on facts and doctrine not addressed here.

Mapped, not ruled: this is not a finding on whether the bill is constitutional. Based on Engrossed in House, 2026-07-23 ↗. Drafted Sep 29, 2026 with claude-sonnet-5-5.
How this is made

How your reps voted

Every recorded vote on this bill by officials who represent Calaveras County, newest first. Each links to the official record.