The US House of Representatives dealt a significant political blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday night by approving a resolution seeking to limit his ability to maintain Washington's offensive in Iran without express authorization from Congress. The vote, which could be approved in the Senate, reflects a growing political erosion of the conflict and shows that even sectors of the Republican Party are beginning to distance themselves from the White House strategy. Will the pronouncement in Congress have a reach on the ground? We figure it out.
First modification: 06/04/2026 - 16:32 Last modification: 06/04/2026 - 20:52
A bipartisan rebuke of the conduct of the US war against Iran.
The resolution was approved by 215 votes to 208 thanks to the unanimous support of Democrats and the support of four Republican legislators: Tom Barrett, Brian Fitzpatrick, Warren Davidson and Thomas Massie. The measure directs the president to withdraw US forces from hostilities against Iran or, failing that, request formal authorization from Congress to continue operations.
This is the first time since the start of the war that Congress has managed to approve an initiative aimed at restricting the military campaign promoted by Trump. The result represents a political defeat for the White House, especially after Republican leaders tried to delay the vote weeks ago when they perceived that they lacked the votes necessary to block it.
"Who would do something so unpatriotic? They know where the negotiations are. Democrats are driven by Trump upset syndrome"
Given the apparent political wear and tear, the local press highlights that the resolution could also now be approved by the Senate, since at least 50 of the 100 legislators seem to support it.
To display this content from X (Twitter), you must allow audience measurement and advertising cookies.
This Thursday, June 4, the president emphatically rejected the vote in the House of Representatives, calling it "senseless" and "unpatriotic."
"Yesterday, in a meaningless vote, the House of Representatives voted — with the support of four traitorous Republicans and all Democrats — to limit my war powers, right in the middle of my final negotiations to end the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran," the president declared through his Truth Social platform.
Who would do something so unpatriotic? They know where the negotiations are at. Democrats are moved by Trump disorder syndrome. They would rather see our country fail than grant me another of my many victories. The four Republicans, that's another story: they are EXHIBITIONISTS! "They should be ashamed of themselves," he added.
Without a doubt, the approval in the Lower House reflects a change in the political climate in Washington. Legislators who had previously supported the presidential position now maintain that the conflict has dragged on for too long without a clear definition of objectives or specific legislative authorization.
Read alsoIran does not see "concrete progress" in the negotiation with the US, while Trump predicts a soon agreement
The constitutional debate behind the resolution
The core of the discussion revolves around the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 to limit the president's ability to involve the country in armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
The sponsors of the resolution maintain that the Executive has exceeded the powers provided by the Constitution and that it is up to Congress to decide when the United States participates in prolonged military operations.
The White House and Republican leadership, on the other hand, argue that Trump retains broad powers as commander in chief to respond to threats against American interests. Furthermore, they maintain that the recent operations constitute actions of self-defense and not a formal war that requires additional legislative authorization.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, even described the resolution as a "dangerous" measure that could weaken the United States' negotiating position against Iran and limit the presidential ability to manage the conflict.
Can Congress force Trump to withdraw troops or end the war?
Not necessarily. Although the resolution represents a strong political signal, its ability to legally enforce a withdrawal is limited. The initiative still must overcome a complex process in the Senate, where it faces greater obstacles, despite the fact that there is a group of Republicans willing to question the presidential strategy.
But even if both chambers approved similar measures, a legal controversy would persist over their binding nature. The Supreme Court has established that decisions with binding legal effects must follow the entire legislative process, including the possibility of the president signing or vetoing them.
In practice, this means that any attempt to legally impose a withdrawal would likely require Trump's signature or a two-thirds majority in both chambers to overcome an eventual presidential veto, a scenario that today seems unlikely.
For this reason, many analysts consider that the vote has more political than legal value.
However, the vote does increase political pressure on Trump. The bipartisan support for the measure shows that unrest over the war is no longer limited to the Democratic opposition and that part of his own party is beginning to question the continuity of the conflict.
If the Senate replicates the signal sent by the House of Representatives, the White House will face a more complex scenario. Although Trump retains the legal tools to continue intervention, he will have less and less political room to do so.
The resolution, by itself, would not force an end to the war, but it does provide a clear warning: Congress's patience with the conflict against Iran is beginning to wear thin.
Also read EE. US launches attacks on Iranian Qeshm island after claiming Tehran launched missiles at neighboring countries
A conflict without a clear solution
The growing resistance within Congress coincides with an uncomfortable reality for the Administration: there is no obvious exit strategy.
Trump continues to defend that indirect negotiations with Tehran could lead to an agreement, but so far there has been little progress. Meanwhile, the prolongation of hostilities fuels skepticism both among Democrats and within Republican sectors.
Proponents of the resolution argue that Congress should actively participate in defining the mission's objectives and evaluating its costs and risks. For them, the absence of formal authorization is a sign that the war lacks the political consensus necessary to sustain itself indefinitely.
Read alsoTrump: Hezbollah and Israel agreed to stop attacks; Pakistan says Iran asked it to resume talks with US
Trump's growing political isolation
Beyond its legal effects, the vote reveals a broader problem for the president: the erosion of his political support.
The war in Iran has become a burden for the White House. The conflict has dragged on for four months without decisive progress, while concerns grow over its economic and strategic costs. The increase in energy prices and international uncertainty have begun to generate concern among Republican legislators who face difficult re-election campaigns ahead of the legislative elections.
The resolution adds to other recent setbacks for Trump in Congress. In recent weeks, Republican lawmakers have halted budget initiatives pushed by the White House, including the $1.8 billion fund intended to reward Trump supporters who allege political persecution by Democrats. Those setbacks show a greater willingness to challenge the president on issues they previously would have supported unquestioningly.
Against this background, the case of Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is especially illustrative. And despite direct pressure from Trump, the member of the House of Representatives once again supported a measure aimed at limiting the president's war powers, showing that party discipline is no longer as solid as in previous years.
With AP and local media
Related keywords
The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.
