House Debates War Powers Resolution on Iran Hostilities and DHS Funding; Votes Postponed on Iran Resolutions
The House convened for a major legislative day, marked by intense debate over the President's military actions in Iran and the ongoing partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Members considered and adopted a rule for H.R. 7744, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, which aims to fully fund DHS. However, the bill itself was not brought to a vote for passage. Two resolutions concerning Iran—H. Res. 1099, reaffirming Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and H. Con. Res. 38, directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran—were debated, but votes on both were postponed. Additionally, two bills under suspension of the rules, S. 723 and H.R. 6472, were passed.
This chamber-day was highly significant due to the House's engagement with the President's military actions in Iran, particularly the debate on the War Powers Resolution. The discussions highlighted fundamental constitutional questions regarding Congress's authority to declare war versus the President's role as Commander in Chief, against the backdrop of ongoing hostilities and casualties. The continued standoff over DHS funding, despite the adoption of a rule to consider a full funding bill, underscored persistent partisan divisions on national security and immigration policy, leaving critical agencies partially unfunded. The postponement of votes on the Iran resolutions indicates ongoing legislative tension and a lack of immediate consensus on these high-stakes foreign policy matters.
Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran
H. Con. Res. 38Question before the chamber
Adoption of H. Con. Res. 38, a concurrent resolution directing the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.
The case for
Proponents, including Rep. Meeks, Rep. Jeffries, Rep. Massie, Rep. Himes, Rep. Jacobs, Rep. Nadler, Rep. Ansari, Rep. Omar, Rep. McGovern, Rep. Deluzio, Rep. Doggett, and Rep. Gomez, argued that the President initiated a "war of choice" without congressional authorization, violating Article I of the Constitution which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. They emphasized that the administration had not presented evidence of an "imminent threat" and that the President's justifications were shifting and inconsistent. They highlighted the human cost of war, with six American servicemembers already killed, and the financial burden on taxpayers. They asserted that Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority to deliberate and authorize military action, rather than allowing a single individual to plunge the nation into conflict. Rep. Massie specifically noted that the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)) allows the President to introduce forces only under specific conditions (declaration of war, statutory authorization, or national emergency from attack), none of which, they argued, were met.
The case against
Opponents, including Rep. Mast, Rep. Wilson of South Carolina, Rep. Mills, Rep. Fine, Rep. Zinke, Rep. McCaul, Rep. Rogers of Alabama, Rep. Smith of New Jersey, Rep. Huizenga, Rep. Self, Rep. Lawler, Rep. Van Drew, Rep. Meuser, and Rep. Crank, argued that the President's actions were a legal and necessary exercise of Article II authority to defend the United States against an imminent and long-standing threat from Iran. They cited Iran's 47-year history of targeting and killing Americans, its support for terrorist proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis), and its pursuit of nuclear weapons as evidence of this imminent threat. They stated that the administration had exhausted diplomatic efforts and that the military operation had clear objectives: to destroy Iran's missile and drone capabilities, degrade its industrial capacity for such weapons, and destroy its naval assets. They criticized the resolution as a partisan political maneuver that would weaken the U.S., endanger servicemembers, and embolden adversaries, arguing that past Presidents of both parties have taken military action without explicit congressional declarations of war.
Disposition
Vote postponed · recorded vote
Further proceedings on the question of adoption were postponed.
Who is affected
- U.S. servicemembers and their families: Directly impacted by deployment to hostilities, risk of injury or death, and the emotional toll on families.
- American taxpayers: Bearing the financial cost of military operations, potentially billions or trillions of dollars.
- Iranian civilians: Subject to the regime's brutality and potentially impacted by military actions, with some Members arguing the operation could offer a chance for freedom.
- U.S. allies in the Middle East (e.g., Israel, Jordan, Gulf states): Impacted by regional instability, potential for retaliation from Iran, and the effectiveness of U.S. defense efforts.
- Global economy: Potential for increased gas prices and disruptions to trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz.
Reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism
H. Res. 1099Question before the chamber
Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1099, a resolution reaffirming Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The case for
Proponents, including Rep. Mast, Rep. Wilson of South Carolina, Rep. Mills, Rep. Fine, and Rep. Zinke, argued that the resolution is a straightforward affirmation of a widely accepted truth: Iran's consistent and extensive support for terrorist groups, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its history of attacks against the U.S. and its allies. They emphasized Iran's decades-long campaign of violence and its explicit calls for "death to America." They stated that this resolution underscores the severity of the threat posed by the Iranian regime and provides a unified stance against its malign activities.
The case against
Opponents, including Rep. Meeks and Rep. Khanna, while generally agreeing with the premise that Iran is a malign actor and state sponsor of terrorism, viewed the resolution as a political stunt. They argued it was not new policy and did nothing to protect Americans or allies, serving primarily to influence the debate on the War Powers Resolution. They contended that while Iran's threat is real, this resolution does not address the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization of military force.
Disposition
Vote postponed · recorded vote
Further proceedings on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution were postponed.
Who is affected
- U.S. foreign policy and national security apparatus: The resolution aims to solidify a consistent U.S. policy stance regarding Iran's role in global terrorism.
- International community and allies: A clear statement of U.S. policy could influence international perceptions and actions regarding Iran.
Providing for consideration of H.R. 7744, Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026
H. Res. 1095Question before the chamber
Adoption of H. Res. 1095, a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7744, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, which would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.
The case for
Proponents, including Rep. Jack, Rep. Garbarino, Rep. Kennedy of Utah, Rep. Fong, Rep. Biggs of South Carolina, and Rep. Moore of Utah, argued that adopting the rule was essential to end the "Democrat shutdown" of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They stressed the urgency of fully funding DHS agencies responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, disaster response (FEMA), aviation security (TSA), and maritime security (Coast Guard), especially given increasing global threats, including from Iran. They highlighted that many DHS personnel were working without pay and that the bill would restore necessary resources to protect the American homeland.
The case against
Opponents, including Rep. Leger Fernandez, Rep. DeLauro, and Rep. Hoyer, characterized the rule as a "rerun of a bad movie" and "political theater." They argued that ICE and CBP were already fully funded through previous legislation (H.R. 1) and that Republicans were refusing to pass a clean bill to fund other critical, non-controversial DHS agencies like FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. They criticized the lack of accountability and alleged abuses by ICE and CBP, demanding reforms such as mandatory body cameras, judicial warrants, and prohibitions on operations at sensitive locations. They asserted that Republicans were holding essential DHS functions hostage over funding for agencies they deemed problematic.
Disposition
Adopted · recorded vote
The resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 7744 was adopted.
211-209
Who is affected
- Department of Homeland Security personnel: Many personnel, including TSA officers and Coast Guardsmen, are working without pay due to the partial shutdown, impacting morale and operations.
- American communities: Vulnerable to cyberattacks, disruptions in transportation security, and compromised disaster response capabilities due to weakened DHS functions.
- Immigrants and U.S. citizens interacting with ICE/CBP: Debate highlighted concerns over alleged abuses, lack of accountability, and constitutional violations by these agencies, impacting trust and safety.
House Adopts Rule for DHS Funding Bill Amidst Shutdown Debate
highThe House adopted H. Res. 1095 (211-209), a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7744, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026. This action followed a contentious debate where Republicans accused Democrats of causing a DHS shutdown by refusing to fund the entire department, while Democrats argued for funding law-abiding agencies like FEMA and the Coast Guard separately from ICE and CBP, which they claimed were engaged in unlawful actions.
Debate on War Powers Resolution for Iran Hostilities
highThe House engaged in a lengthy and heated debate on H. Con. Res. 38, directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Proponents emphasized Congress's constitutional authority to declare war and criticized the President for initiating military action without congressional authorization or a clear strategy. Opponents argued the President acted within his Article II authority to defend against an imminent threat from Iran, which they characterized as a long-standing state sponsor of terrorism.
Vote Postponed on Iran War Powers Resolution
highFollowing extensive debate, the vote on the adoption of H. Con. Res. 38, the War Powers Resolution concerning Iran, was postponed. This procedural move leaves the resolution's fate uncertain and reflects the deep divisions within the House regarding the President's military actions.
Debate on Reaffirming Iran as State Sponsor of Terrorism
mediumThe House debated H. Res. 1099, a resolution reaffirming Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism. While there was broad agreement on Iran's malign activities, the debate became intertwined with the War Powers Resolution, with some Members viewing it as a political maneuver to influence the broader discussion on military authorization.
Vote Postponed on Iran State Sponsor of Terrorism Resolution
mediumAfter debate, the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 1099, reaffirming Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism, was postponed. This indicates a lack of immediate consensus, even on a resolution that seemingly had broad bipartisan agreement on its core premise.
Ethics Resolution on Sexual Harassment Referred to Committee
mediumH. Res. 1100, a privileged resolution directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records related to sexual harassment violations, was offered by Ms. Mace. A motion by Mr. Garbarino to refer the resolution to the Committee on Ethics was agreed to by a recorded vote of 357-65, with 1 answering "present".