House Republicans pull vote on Iran war resolution that appeared to have enough support to pass

House Republicans Delay Vote on Iran War Powers Resolution

May 22, 2026 / 12:34 AM EDT

CBS/AP

House Republicans on Thursday postponed a scheduled vote on a war powers resolution that would direct President Trump to end U.S. military involvement in the conflict with Iran. The delay occurred after Republican leaders determined that several members were absent and that the measure might pass with support from some Republicans.

The resolution, introduced by Democrats, seeks to limit the president’s authority to conduct operations against Iran without explicit congressional approval. Leaders cited the need to allow absent lawmakers to participate before proceeding. House Republican Leader Steve Scalise stated that the vote was postponed specifically to accommodate members who were not present. House Speaker Mike Johnson did not comment when approached by reporters.

Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the sponsor and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Republicans recognized they lacked sufficient votes to block the measure and therefore chose to delay it. Last week the House recorded a 212-212 tie on a similar resolution, with three Republicans voting in favor. Earlier this week the Senate advanced a comparable measure with support from four Republican senators and three absences.

In a joint statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democratic leaders described the postponement as an avoidance of accountability. They noted that the action came ahead of Memorial Day observances and referenced service members involved in the conflict.

The measure comes amid a U.S.-Iran ceasefire that began in early April following operations that started nearly three months earlier. Direct combat has largely ceased, though shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains restricted, contributing to higher fuel prices in the United States. Public polling has shown majority disapproval of continued military action and skepticism about progress in the conflict.

Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, the only Democrat who opposed the resolution in last week’s tie vote, indicated he would support it in a future vote. Most House Republicans have continued to back the administration’s stated objective of eliminating Iran’s nuclear facilities. Rep. Brian Mast, Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States should not respond to attacks by withdrawing without consequence.

Other Republicans have argued that the 60-day period established under the 1973 War Powers Resolution has expired and that further operations require congressional authorization. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania stated that the legal timeline has passed and that he intends to vote for the current resolution. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has opposed prior versions, expressed dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the issue, particularly comments from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and said he would consider supporting an authorization for use of military force.

The White House maintains that the ceasefire has altered the applicability of the 1973 statute. President Trump stated earlier in the week that he had been prepared to order an additional strike but deferred after Gulf allies reported ongoing negotiations. In a social media post he directed military planners to remain ready for a larger operation if talks failed to produce an acceptable agreement.

The pending concurrent resolution would not require the president’s signature to take effect if approved by both chambers. The administration has maintained that the 1973 law itself exceeds congressional authority in this area. Congressional action on the measure could lead to further disputes over the division of war powers between the branches.

Additional background shows that Democrats have attempted multiple times to advance Iran-related restrictions, with the Senate vote this week representing the first procedural success after earlier setbacks. The current ceasefire has reduced active engagements but left unresolved questions about enforcement and future contingencies.