Iran Withdrawal Won a Senate Vote, Then Lost Another

Card photograph: ARCHIVE. The Pentagon photographed from the air on May 15, 2023. Photo: U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. John Wright / Department of Defense / Wikimedia Commons. Public domain, U.S. federal government work. Cropped for the card. License. Source photograph.

The incoming Congress inherits a divided record on the Iran war: the Senate approved one withdrawal resolution in June, then rejected another in September. On June 23, senators agreed to H.Con.Res. 86 by 50–48. On September 24, they rejected H.Con.Res. 89 by 49–50, according to the official roll-call record.

For the anti-war movement seeking congressional action, June established that a withdrawal demand could win a Senate majority. But a concurrent resolution does not have the binding force of a law, and that majority did not hold for the later measure.

A withdrawal vote with a defense exception

The introduced text of H.Con.Res. 86 directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress explicitly authorized them. It excepted forces needed to defend the United States, an ally or a partner against imminent attack, subject to the War Powers Resolution’s requirements.

ARCHIVE. Gen. Dan Caine testifying at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the fiscal 2026 defense budget, June 18, 2025. Photo: Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza / U.S. Department of Defense. Source photograph. Public domain.

Republicans Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul voted for the June resolution. Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. Republicans Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick did not vote. The 50–48 result depended on support across party lines rather than a united Democratic caucus.

A separate effort stalled on July 30, when the Senate rejected, 49–50, a motion to discharge S.J.Res. 181, directing removal from unauthorized hostilities within or against Iran. That was a vote to bring a joint resolution out of committee, not passage of the resolution itself. September’s 49–50 defeat came on the concurrent resolution.

Congress can restrict the money

The Congressional Research Service explains that simple and concurrent resolutions are not legally binding on the executive. The June vote recorded Senate support for withdrawal; it did not itself enact an enforceable prohibition on military operations.

Congress has a separate power to condition or prohibit spending. An appropriations restriction can address the money sustaining hostilities, rather than merely announce opposition to them. Such legislation requires presidential approval or sufficient votes to override a veto. Hearings and demands for information can expose how a war is conducted, but do not themselves cut off its funding.

AP’s election report places Hakeem Jeffries on a path to the speakership after Democrats captured the House. That changes who can organize hearings and advance legislation in the chamber. It does not give the House control over Senate votes or presidential vetoes.

The June roll call gives opponents of the war a concrete coalition to rebuild. Turning that coalition into a binding funding restriction would require another fight: over the appropriations that pay for U.S. participation, and over whether enough lawmakers will sustain a restriction against presidential opposition.