hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Demands President end unauthorized US military actions in Iran.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Introduced in the Senate, sent to committee.
This resolution, sponsored by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), aims to force the President to withdraw U.S. troops from ongoing military hostilities in or against Iran if Congress has not specifically authorized such action. It has been introduced in the Senate and referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, meaning it must pass through this committee before it can be voted on by the full Senate.
Introduced Apr 13, 2026
This bill is currently in the Committee stage within the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Booker and assigned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for review. For it to advance, the committee must approve it, after which it could be brought to a vote before the full Senate. If passed by the Senate, it would then need to pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the President to become law.
If this resolution becomes law, it would immediately cease any U.S. military operations in Iran that have not received specific approval from Congress. This could potentially reduce the financial burden on taxpayers by limiting military spending in that region. The bill specifically notes that ongoing hostilities have caused "global cost of oil and gas, fertilizer, and basic goods have surged," so ending such operations might help stabilize these prices, impacting your household budget. Furthermore, it would ensure that U.S. service members are not engaged in conflicts without direct congressional authorization, potentially reducing casualties.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue this bill upholds the Constitution by ensuring Congress, not the President, declares war or authorizes military force.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it limits the President's ability to quickly respond to threats and defend U.S. interests and personnel abroad.
Those in favor emphasize Congress's constitutional authority to declare war and control military engagements, arguing this bill reasserts that power. They point to the War Powers Resolution as the legal framework for congressional oversight. Opponents, or those with reservations, often highlight the President's role as Commander-in-Chief, suggesting that limiting executive action could impede swift responses to protect U.S. national security or personnel, especially in dynamic situations. The bill does include provisions allowing for defensive actions and intelligence sharing, which are likely concessions to these potential concerns.