Adam Schiff (D-CA)
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress.
A Democratic resolution with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to discharge Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 51. Record Vote Number: 555.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote to take a measure away from a committee that has not acted on it · 10/08/2025
What this bill would do
This joint resolution directs the President to stop using United States Armed Forces for hostilities that Congress has not authorized. It specifically targets actions against organizations designated as terrorists on or after February 20, 2025, states where those entities operate, and non-state organizations trafficking illegal drugs. The resolution is a response to military strikes on vessels in September 2025. It maintains that the President cannot use force based solely on terrorist designations. However, it still allows the U.S. to defend itself from armed attacks or support civil authorities in authorized counternarcotics operations.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Increases accountability by requiring Congressional authorization for military force.
- Scored +4
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
Directs the removal of forces from unauthorized hostilities, reducing expenditures.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Asserts the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances over executive military action.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this give the federal government more power?
Specifically reduces the unilateral power of the President to initiate military hostilities.
- Scored -2
Does this put more money into stopping terrorism?
Limits the executive's ability to engage in military action against designated terrorists without Congress.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
None of them settled the bill — every vote so far has been about whether to keep going.
- The Senate: a vote to take a measure away from a committee that has not acted on it A committee can hold a measure indefinitely. This asks the whole chamber to take it away from the committee and bring it to the floor. If it fails, the measure stays where it was. Motion to Discharge Rejected 48 yes · 51 no
10/08/2025 · Roll call 555 · recorded as “On the Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 83”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Accountability for Military Action: The resolution asserts that Congress has the sole power to declare war under the Constitution, which ensures that military force is used with legislative oversight (Section 1).
-
Clear Limits on Force: It prohibits the use of armed forces against certain terrorist organizations, states, and drug-trafficking groups unless specifically authorized, preventing unauthorized hostilities (Section 2(a)).
-
Support for Non-Lethal Drug Control: The resolution expresses a commitment to provide resources for intelligence, law enforcement, and detection technology to stop drug trafficking rather than relying on unauthorized military strikes (Section 1(8)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restrictions on Executive Action: The resolution limits the President's ability to use armed forces against foreign terrorist organizations designated after February 20, 2025, or drug-trafficking organizations without a specific act of Congress (Section 2(a)).
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 reduce what is spent on the military? — Directs the removal of forces from unauthorized hostilities, reducing expenditures. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Shifts the focus from unauthorized military strikes to potential diplomatic and non-lethal means. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — By adhering to legal authorizations, the US may improve its standing regarding international law. Does this put more money into stopping terrorism? — Limits the executive's ability to engage in military action against designated terrorists without Congress.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Ensures military spending is aligned with Congressional authorization and oversight. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Directs the termination of specific military operations, potentially lowering operational costs. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Reducing unauthorized military hostilities may lead to a reduction in unplanned military spending.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Increases accountability by requiring Congressional authorization for military force. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Asserts the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances over executive military action. Does this give the federal government more power? — Specifically reduces the unilateral power of the President to initiate military hostilities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — May reduce the risk of soldiers being deployed into unauthorized or ill-defined conflicts.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Expresses commitment to provide non-lethal resources and technology to combat drug trafficking.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — Promotes the use of intelligence and detection technology to stop drug trafficking at ports of entry.
- 10/8/2025
- Motion to discharge Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 51. Record Vote Number: 555.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- 10/3/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/18/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 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 DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Rand PaulRepublican · Kentucky
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon