hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Directs US troop removal from hypothetical 2026 Iran hostilities.
Senators Murphy, Booker, Kaine, and Schiff.
Introduced in Senate, referred to committee.
This Senate Joint Resolution, sponsored by Senators Murphy, Booker, Kaine, and Schiff, responds to a hypothetical future scenario. It directs the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran that are said to have begun on February 28, 2026, without specific Congressional authorization. The bill is currently in the initial stage, having been introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Introduced Mar 5, 2026
This bill was introduced in the Senate on March 5, 2026, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. For it to become law, it must pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and then be signed by the President. This is the very first step in the legislative process, and it has not yet been voted on by either chamber.
If this bill were to pass and become law in the context of the hypothetical 2026 scenario, the President would be directed to remove U.S. forces from any ongoing hostilities in Iran that lack explicit Congressional authorization. This bill reinforces the idea that only Congress has the power to declare war or specifically authorize military force. However, it clarifies that the U.S. would still be able to defend itself and its personnel from attack, and assist allies against Iranian aggression.
Supporters Say
Proponents would argue this bill upholds the Constitution by ensuring Congress, not the President, has the ultimate authority to declare war.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it could limit the President's ability to respond quickly to threats and protect U.S. interests.
The bill's findings explicitly state that Congress has the sole power to declare war and has not authorized military force against Iran in this hypothetical 2026 scenario. Supporters would emphasize the importance of preventing unauthorized military campaigns. Conversely, those who oppose such measures often highlight the President's constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief and the need for flexibility in national security matters, especially regarding immediate threats. The bill includes provisions that would still allow for defensive actions.