US Congress Votes to Halt Iran War as White House Claims Conflict Is Already Over

KUALA LUMPUR, June, 2026 — The US Congress has voted to halt President Donald Trump’s military action against Iran, even as the White House insists that the conflict is already over. The Senate passed the House-approved war powers resolution in a 50-48 vote, directing Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress explicitly authorises military action.

The vote represents one of the strongest congressional challenges to Trump’s Iran policy so far. Reuters reported that this was the first time both chambers of Congress had passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from hostilities since the War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973.

The resolution is largely symbolic because it is a concurrent resolution, meaning it does not go to the president’s desk for signature. Its legal force is disputed, with the White House arguing that it has no binding effect and legal experts saying the question may ultimately have to be tested in court.

Despite the disputed legal impact, the political message is clear. Both the House and Senate are now formally on record opposing continued US hostilities with Iran without explicit congressional authorisation.

The Iran conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran. The war later rattled global energy markets and expanded into a wider regional crisis involving Lebanon and Gulf states.

Malay Mail reported that the vote came as the Trump administration pursued a 60-day diplomatic push to turn a preliminary memorandum of understanding with Iran into a final agreement covering Tehran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Senate vote was pushed by Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who said Republicans needed to go beyond private complaints and act publicly if they wanted to ensure the war ended.

The resolution had earlier passed the Republican-controlled House after four Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Reuters reported that the House vote was 215-208, showing only limited but politically significant Republican support.

In the Senate, four Republicans — Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski — voted in favour of the resolution. Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against it, while Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and David McCormick missed the vote.

Democrats argue that Trump violated the Constitution by launching military operations against Iran without congressional approval. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief.

The debate also centres on the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires presidents to obtain congressional authorisation within 60 days of introducing US forces into hostilities. However, administrations from both parties have often disputed how the law applies to modern military operations.

The White House has rejected the resolution, arguing that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that the measure has no force of law. A White House official also said the resolution was irrelevant because US hostilities with Iran had already ended under an April 7 ceasefire.

Trump criticised the vote, calling it “poorly timed and meaningless” and accusing lawmakers who supported it of making his job more difficult while his administration negotiates with Tehran.

The administration has also argued that limiting Trump’s authority could weaken Washington’s leverage in negotiations with Iran. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Trump ally, warned before the earlier House vote that restricting the commander-in-chief during negotiations was a “very dangerous prospect.”

However, Democrats and some Republicans say the measure is necessary because Trump has repeatedly threatened renewed strikes if diplomacy fails. They argue that any future military action against Iran must be approved by Congress first.

The vote also reflects wider public and political unease over the cost of the Iran war. Reuters reported that a Reuters/Ipsos poll found only one in four Americans believed the war against Iran was worth its costs, while a majority worried that a truce with Tehran was unlikely to last.

The conflict has placed pressure on US politics ahead of the November midterm elections. Rising energy prices, inflation concerns and the cost of military operations have increased scrutiny of Trump’s handling of the war.

At the same time, the diplomatic process remains fragile. Iran has rejected claims that it agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect nuclear sites bombed by the United States and Israel, while Trump insisted that Tehran had accepted the “highest level” of nuclear inspections.

The Strait of Hormuz also remains a major point of dispute. Malay Mail reported that Iran’s top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the strait would “never return” to the days of free passage before the war, despite new communication lines designed to keep the vital shipping route open.

Congress may also review any final Iran peace deal if it affects Tehran’s nuclear programme. Reuters reported that Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune said he expected Congress would review and vote on an eventual Iran agreement.

For Trump, the vote adds political pressure at a sensitive stage of diplomacy. Even if the resolution does not immediately force a legal change in US military posture, it signals that Congress wants a stronger role in decisions over war and peace with Iran.

For Democrats, the resolution is part of a broader attempt to reassert congressional authority over military action. Representative Gregory Meeks, who sponsored the measure in the House, said he viewed the resolution as binding and would pursue legal options to ensure compliance.

For Republicans, the vote exposed internal divisions. While most remained aligned with Trump, a small number broke ranks over concerns about constitutional authority, cost, public opinion and the risk of renewed conflict.

The development also raises a larger constitutional question: whether Congress can use a concurrent resolution to force a president to end hostilities without the president’s signature. Reuters reported that legal experts believe the issue could be decided by the courts, although it is unclear who would have standing to sue.

the congressional vote is both symbolic and politically significant. It may not immediately end any military posture connected to Iran, but it increases pressure on the White House not to resume hostilities without congressional approval.

The development is suitable for Update News because it involves a current US congressional vote, Trump’s Iran war powers, White House legal claims, Middle East diplomacy and the ongoing debate over presidential authority to wage war.