The measure cleared the Senate by a 50–48 vote after previously passing the House of Representatives. It directs President Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress formally authorises any further military action.
Although the resolution is classified as a “concurrent resolution” and will not be submitted to the president for approval, meaning its legal force is disputed, its passage places both chambers of Congress on record opposing continued military engagement.
The development comes against the backdrop of a conflict that began following US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February. The escalation has disrupted global energy markets and widened into a broader regional confrontation involving Lebanon and several Gulf states.
Read More: US Senate advances bill to end federal shutdown
The vote also coincides with a 60-day diplomatic push by the Trump administration to transform a preliminary understanding with Iran into a comprehensive agreement.
The proposed deal reportedly includes Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, and arrangements concerning the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer led the push for the vote, aiming to force Republicans to take a public position following internal divisions within the Trump camp over both the war and ongoing negotiations.
“Republicans can complain about Trump’s war, his secrecy, and his disastrous deal with Iran all they want behind closed doors, but the only way to ensure this war ends once and for all is for Republicans to act,” Schumer said ahead of the vote.
The resolution had already passed the Republican-controlled House, where four GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in a rare bipartisan split with the Trump administration on matters of war authority and national security.
Democrats argue that the President exceeded constitutional authority by initiating military action without congressional approval. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Trump ally, defended the administration, calling restrictions on the president during active negotiations a “very dangerous prospect.”
Meanwhile, some lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern that the conflict has continued beyond its legal justification, with warnings also raised over repeated threats of renewed strikes.
