10
Loading video...
By Sam Stevenson
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The House voted 220-204 on Tuesday to restrict further U.S. military action against Iran, with seven Republicans joining Democrats to support the measure.
Republican defections increased from four to seven as the war’s cost, duration and political risks loom over the November midterm elections.
The symbolic vote pressures the White House and Senate but does not immediately remove U.S. forces from hostilities.
Read More on Politics
Why It Matters
Congress has repeatedly tried to reassert its role in decisions over war since fighting began on February 28.
This latest vote exposed a widening, though still limited, division inside the Republican Party over how long presidential military authority should continue without a new authorization.
...
Key Points
- Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Iowa Representatives Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn joined the restriction effort for the first time.
- Tuesday’s resolution preserves the ability to defend the United States or an ally from imminent attack while restricting unauthorized hostilities.
- Whether the Senate will consider the measure before lawmakers leave Washington for the election remains unclear.
- The Congressional Budget Office estimated that U.S. military operations against Iran had cost the Defense Department about $38 billion as of August 1.
- A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 93 percent of registered voters believed the Iran conflict was raising U.S. oil and gas prices, while 71 percent said Americans should not be willing to pay more for gas during the fighting.
...
List of Seven Republican Defectors
Seven Republicans crossed the aisle in the House on Tuesday, delivering the strongest GOP challenge yet to President Donald Trump’s handling of the war with Iran.
Mace, Miller-Meeks and Nunn joined four Republicans who had backed previous efforts: Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
That movement matters because the first two House resolutions drew only four Republican votes.
Newsweek reached out to every Republican mentioned above and the White House for comment via email on Wednesday morning and is awaiting responses.
A spokesperson for Barrett told Newsweek that the Congressman's position on the Iran war "hasn't changed."
"He has consistently voted four times now to limit operations in Iran absent authorization from Congress since the initial 60-day window outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 expired," he said. "The Congressman is also the only member in Congress to introduce an Authorization for Use of Military Force that would have limited and helped wind down the conflict."
Massie’s office pointed Newsweek to his earlier work with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna on an Iran War Powers Resolution, saying his comments from June 2025 remained his position.
"This is not our war," Massie wrote at the time. "Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution."
The Kentucky Republican reinforced that position on September 15 by introducing eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The first three accuse Hegseth of violating provisions of the War Powers Resolution through military operations in Iran. The allegations have not been adjudicated.
Related Story
How Social Posts Made in China Sparked Anti-U.S. Protests in America
...
Why the Vote Carries Electoral Risk
Electoral geography adds another layer. Miller-Meeks and Nunn both represent Iowa, a state featuring prominently in the fight for control of Congress.
Their votes do not prove that campaign considerations drove the decision, but the timing gives Democrats an opening to make the conflict part of their closing midterm argument.
And recent polling suggests they may find a receptive audience for that line of attack.
A CBS News/YouGov survey conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,460 U.S. adults from September 8 to 11, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 points, found that 56 percent of likely voters would prefer a congressional candidate who opposed Trump’s approach to the conflict.
Thirty-two percent favored a candidate who supported it, while 12 percent said the issue would not matter to their vote.
That same polling found 64 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of Iran, while 36 percent approved. Among likely voters, 66 percent described the conflict as very important to their congressional vote.
...
Democrats Link the War to Costs
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has sought to connect the war directly to household finances.
Spokesman Viet Shelton accused Republicans who opposed the resolution of ignoring constituents who want Washington to "oppose the war and lower costs."
The campaign committee’s characterization shows how Democrats intend to package the issue: foreign policy abroad, affordability at home.
Polling indicates that voters see a connection between the conflict and energy prices.
In the CBS News/YouGov poll, 93 percent of registered voters said the war was making U.S. oil and gas prices either a lot or a little higher, while 71 percent said Americans should not be willing to pay more for gas during the fighting.
Fresh federal analysis gives the cost argument further weight, although not every price increase can be attributed solely to the conflict.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that military operations had cost the Defense Department about $38 billion through August 1.
Continued fighting at comparatively low intensity could add roughly $2 billion to $3 billion per month, with higher costs during renewed exchanges of fire.
CBO warned that its military, economic and budgetary estimates use different methods and should not simply be added together.
That caveat matters because both parties have an incentive to compress a complicated balance sheet into a campaign-ready number.
...
What Unites the Republican Coalition
For the seven Republicans, the shared vote masks different political traditions.
Massie and Davidson occupy the party’s noninterventionist flank.
Fitzpatrick has framed his position around compliance with the War Powers Act, while Barrett has argued that Congress should determine the mission’s scope once delegated authority expires.
Those distinctions suggest the coalition is united more by concern over unchecked executive power than by a single view of Iran.
The resolution introduced by Democratic Representative Seth Moulton directs the president to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress declares war or specifically authorizes force.
It contains an exception for forces needed to defend the United States, an ally or a partner from imminent attack.
What Happens Next
The immediate question moves to the Senate, where the calendar is narrowing before the elections.
A House-passed resolution from July has not advanced there, and the White House has disputed the validity of an earlier measure adopted by both chambers.
Without Senate action, Tuesday’s vote remains principally a marker of congressional sentiment.
Politically, however, it shows that opposition to the war is no longer confined to Democrats or to the same four Republican dissenters.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn
here.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Matthew Robinson and James Debens
Update, 09/16/2026 11:04 a.m. ET: this article has been updated with a response from Massie's office and extra information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines