Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A Democratic resolution with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The resolution states that Congress has not declared war or provided specific statutory authorization for these military operations. It notes that current offensive operations could increase the risk of a broader regional conflict and retaliation against U.S. forces and allies. The directive applies unless there is an explicit declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. Finally, the resolution allows for continued defensive actions, intelligence sharing, and assistance to partner countries.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +4
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
Reducing offensive military action can create space for diplomatic resolutions with Iran.
- Scored +3
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
Removal of forces from offensive operations reduces the cost of maintaining such hostilities.
- Scored +2
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
Protects regional partners and prevents a broader conflict that could destabilize alliances.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this give the federal government more power?
Reduces the executive branch's power to initiate military hostilities without congressional approval.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduction of regional conflict risk: The resolution finds that continuing offensive operations increases the likelihood of further retaliation and the risk of a broader regional conflict (Section 1, Finding 6). By directing the removal of forces, it aims to address this risk.
-
Protection of personnel and facilities: The resolution maintains the ability for the United States to defend against attacks on its personnel or facilities in other nations (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Support for attacked partner nations: The bill allows the U.S. to assist partner countries that have been attacked by the Islamic Republic of Iran or its proxies since February 28, 2026, through intercepting retaliatory attacks or providing defensive materiel support (Section 2(b)(3)).
-
Intelligence sharing for defense: The resolution permits the collection and sharing of intelligence to help defend against threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran or its proxies (Section 2(b)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly listed in the text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Reducing offensive military action can create space for diplomatic resolutions with Iran. Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — Removal of forces from offensive operations reduces the cost of maintaining such hostilities. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Protects regional partners and prevents a broader conflict that could destabilize alliances. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Reducing regional conflict risk generally stabilizes international trade routes.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Directs the removal of forces from offensive hostilities, potentially lowering operational costs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Asserts congressional authority over war spending and authorizations. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Ending unauthorized offensive military operations may reduce government spending on war efforts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reinforces the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization of war. Does this give the federal government more power? — Reduces the executive branch's power to initiate military hostilities without congressional approval.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces the likelihood of young adults being deployed to unauthorized offensive conflicts.
- 6/24/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/15/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/13/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Charles SchumerDemocrat · New York
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland