Trump called the House vote to end the war in Iran unpatriotic. He also says that the conflict is already over – what does that actually mean | Today’s news
The US House of Representatives voted 215-208 on Wednesday to order US President Donald Trump to withdraw US troops from hostilities with Iran, the first time both chambers have taken such action since the start of Operation Epic Fury on February 28.
Four Republicans broke with their party to introduce the resolution, reflecting growing concern within Trump’s own ranks over the conflict, which has closed the Strait of Hormuz, sent fuel prices soaring and produced no lasting solution. The vote raises a critical question: Does Congress really have the power to end this war, and if so, how?
The do’s and don’ts of the House War Powers Resolution
Wednesday’s resolution is legally significant but operationally limited. As a concurrent resolution, it does not require the President’s signature and cannot be vetoed. However, it must clear the Senate before it carries any weight, and even then, concurrent resolutions generally do not have the force of law. They express the intent of Congress rather than impose binding obligations.
Read also | Trump on PM Modi: “My good friend,” believes in India-US trade deal
The resolution derives its authority from the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the president to end military action within 60 days unless congressional approval is obtained, with an additional 30-day window if the president deems continued operations necessary to protect withdrawing troops. The US and Israel launched hostilities against Iran on 28 February. The 60 day clock has long passed.
The Trump administration is challenging that premise. In a May 1 letter to Congress, Trump argued that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, which went into effect on April 8, effectively ended the war and therefore rendered the War Powers Act’s timeline inapplicable.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth separately claimed that the ceasefire had completely “reset” the clock. Observers across the legal and political spectrum have questioned this interpretation, particularly given that strikes around the Strait of Hormuz continue and no permanent agreement has been reached.
The Pentagon, State Department and USAID inspectors general announced a joint review of the war on Wednesday, saying federal law requires them to review overseas military operations lasting more than 60 days.
Four Republicans break down the rankings and why their profiles matter
The ideological range of the four Republicans who crossed the aisle is as remarkable as the defection itself. Each represents a different element of the opposition in a party that broadly supports the conflict.
Read also | Oil price stabilizes amid uncertainty over US-Iran truce; Brent is hovering around $95
Thomas Massie of Kentucky is a libertarian-leaning constitutionalist who has opposed the war since its inception and previously co-sponsored efforts to block unauthorized military action in Venezuela and earlier Iranian strikes in June 2025. He lost to a Trump-backed challenger in the May Republican primary.
Warren Davidson of Ohio is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger who voted against a previous war powers resolution before returning to that position.
Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a former FBI agent representing suburban Philadelphia, framed his vote in constitutional rather than political terms. “There is a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick told reporters. “I don’t see what’s so complicated about it. Bring it to Congress, debate it on the merits and let it be voted on. That’s how the system is supposed to work.”
He added: “We’ve got 60 days, so you have two options. Either you follow the law or you change the law. You can’t break the law. That’s not an option.”
Read also | Trump says the US will “win through diplomacy or military action” against Iran
Tom Barrett of Michigan voted against the March War Powers Resolution, saying at the time that Trump deserved an opportunity to quickly resolve the conflict. In May, his calculations changed the economic consequences affecting his constituents.
The economic pain from the Iran war is reshaping the political calculus
Fuel costs have become the most tangible domestic consequence of the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil normally flows, has remained effectively closed since the strikes in February. The national average for gasoline in the US is now around $4.24 per gallon, with California closer to $6. Diesel prices in agricultural states attracted particular attention.
Read also | Even if America and Iran reach a deal, don’t expect it to last
Massie was blunt after the vote: “People are tired of this. They’re tired of 5 gallons of gas and 6 gallons of diesel and fertilizer that we can’t afford to put on our fields in Kentucky.”
Moody’s Analytics estimates that higher energy costs attributable to the conflict have cost American households a total of approximately $100 billion. A joint Economist/YouGov poll found that 59% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran conflict, while 31% of Americans approve. About two-thirds of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll said rising fuel prices have hurt their household finances.
Democrats are claiming a constitutional mandate after unanimously supporting the resolution
All Democrats in the House supported the resolution. Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that introduced the measure, called the result a constitutional remedy.
Read also | Trump criticizes four Republicans, Democrats after House cuts war powers
“I’m excited that we had the opportunity to have some members from the Republican party stand up. I’m really excited and proud of my Democratic colleagues because every Democrat, every single one, voted for this,” Meeks told reporters. “We’re going to continue to fulfill our constitutional obligations, that’s what we’re doing. We’re going to continue and be a check and balance when the administration doesn’t follow the Constitution.”
The vote was originally scheduled for May 21, but was postponed when Republican leadership sent members home early for recess after it appeared the resolution had enough votes to pass.
Trump rejects the vote but contradicts his own claim of a truce
Trump’s reaction to the vote was pointed out. He described it on Truth Social as “unpatriotic” and attributed the Republican defection to what he called “Trump derangement syndrome.” Separately, he criticized the resolution on Thursday as interfering with his “final negotiations” to end the war with Iran.
The framing highlighted a contradiction at the center of the administration’s position. At the same time, Trump claimed that the war ended with an armistice in April and that the House resolution could destabilize ongoing peace talks to end the war.
Read also | US jobless claims hit four-month high amid Iran war uncertainty
When asked about the ceasefire on Wednesday, Trump offered a revised definition: “A ceasefire there is a lot different than a ceasefire in other parts of the world. I would say a ‘ceasefire’ in this part of the world is when you shoot in a more moderate way.”
U.S. and Iranian forces exchanged fresh strikes late Tuesday night. US strikes Iran’s Qeshm Island; Iran responded with strikes on Kuwait’s international airport and US military facilities in Bahrain.
Senate arithmetic is changing as more Republicans reconsider the war
The resolution now moves to the Senate, where the dynamic is changing. Four Republican senators have already broken with the administration to advance a comparable war powers measure, reaching the 50-vote threshold needed for a simple majority.
Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy changed his vote after Trump swooped in to defeat him in the Louisiana Republican primary. Texas’ John Cornyn, Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis have yet to commit to a position.
Read also | Even if America and Iran reach a deal, don’t expect it to last
Because the concurrent resolutions bypass a presidential veto, passage by the Senate would bring a more direct rebuke than any previous congressional action on the conflict. Whether that would force the administration to change its behavior remains a separate and open question that may ultimately turn on whether the courts are willing to enforce the War Powers Act’s provisions.
House Speaker Mike Johnson argued on Wednesday that the war powers’ vote would weaken Trump’s negotiating position with Tehran. Trump officials have repeatedly indicated that a deal is close. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. No permanent agreement was made. By most observable measures, the war continues.
