#6月3日，美國眾議院以215票對208票通過戰爭權力決議，要求川普停止對伊朗軍事行動，未經國會授權不得繼續作戰。4名共和黨議員與民主黨共同投下贊成票，係2月開戰以來首次。雖決議象徵意�� On June 3, 2026, the United States House of Representatives delivered a significant rebuke to President Donald Trump by passing a War Powers Resolution aimed at restricting his authority to conduct military operations against Iran. The final vote was 215 in favor to 208 against—a narrow yet meaningful margin that underscored growing unease within the Republican Party over the three-month-old conflict.

The resolution directs President Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran unless Congress formally declares war or explicitly authorizes the continued use of military force. The vote marked the first successful passage of such a war powers measure in the House since the conflict began in late February.
Key Details of the June 3 Vote
Aspect Details
Date June 3, 2026
Vote Count 215 in favor, 208 against
Result Passed
Nature Rebuke to President Trump’s handling of the Iran war
Significance First war powers resolution on this conflict to pass the House
Key Points:
· Four Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for the resolution.
· The bill was seen as a sharp reaction to White House unilateralism in military affairs.
· The resolution demands that the president cease using U.S. armed forces against Iran without prior congressional approval.
· Debate raged: Democrats invoked the War Powers Resolution of 1973, while Republicans (including Trump) dismissed the move as symbolic and politically motivated.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 – Legal Framework
At the heart of the confrontation lies the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also known as the War Powers Act), enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto. This law was designed to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war and to limit the president’s ability to engage U.S. forces in prolonged military conflicts without legislative approval.
Under the War Powers Resolution:
· The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities.
· Military operations must terminate within 60 days unless Congress authorizes their continuation.
· An additional 30-day withdrawal period is allowed but strictly for safe extraction, not for combat extension.
· The law is automatically triggered—Congress does not need to pass an additional resolution to activate its provisions.
What the Resolution Did (and Did Not) Do
What It Did:
· Formally asserted congressional authority over war-making powers in the Iran conflict.
· Required the president to cease unauthorized military operations against Iran.
· Prohibited further hostilities unless specifically authorized by a declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
· Clarified that existing authorizations (such as the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs) do not cover the war with Iran.
What It Did Not Do:
· It did not immediately end the war or change U.S. troop posture on the ground.
· The resolution itself was largely symbolic as a standalone measure, because even after House passage, several hurdles remained
Why Did Four Republicans Defect?
The defection of four House Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio)—sent shockwaves through Washington. Their votes provided the critical margin for passage.
The explanations among these GOP defectors varied but coalesced around several key themes:
· Constitutional principle: A belief that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 remains the law of the land and must be respected, regardless of which party occupies the White House.
· Constituent pressure: Growing war fatigue among voters in their districts, many of whom oppose an “endless war” in the Middle East.
· Executive overreach: The view that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by initiating and continuing a major military campaign without so much as a formal congressional vote. One of the Republican defectors framed it as a simple question: “Congress needs to reclaim its constitutional powers.”
These four Republicans joined all voting Democrats, delivering a rare bipartisan rebuke to a sitting president from his own party.
The 60-Day Deadline – A Critical Countdown
The military conflict with Iran began on February 28, 2026 with the launch of “Operation Epic Fury,” a coordinated U.S.-Israeli airstrike campaign. President Trump formally notified Congress of the initiation of hostilities on March 2, 2026.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the 60-day clock began on March 2, meaning the statutory deadline for unilateral presidential authority expired on May 1, 2026. Unless Congress voted to authorize continued military action, the president was legally required to terminate U.S. involvement in hostilities.
However, the Trump administration advanced a novel legal argument: that the 60-day clock stopped when a ceasefire was reached on April 7, despite subsequent military exchanges between U.S. and Iranian forces. Congressional Democrats and constitutional experts rejected this interpretation as a dangerous expansion of executive power.
By June 3, the conflict had raged for over 90 days—well past the 60-day limit—with no congressional authorization, providing the legal and political fuel for the House vote.
Official Objectives of the Resolution
The resolution contained several key provisions:
1. Termination of unauthorized hostilities: The president must “terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military” unless explicitly authorized by Congress.
2. Congressional approval required: No funds could be used to continue military operations against Iran without a formal declaration of war or specific AUMF.
3. Self-defense exception: The resolution included a narrow exception for responding to an “imminent armed attack” on the United States or its forces.
4. Notification requirements: The administration would be required to provide regular reports to Congress on the status of U.S. military involvement in the region.
Political Reactions from Both Sides
Democratic Leadership
Rep. Gregory Meeks, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the resolution’s sponsor, declared: “The passage of this resolution today marks a significant turning point. More and more Republican lawmakers are listening to voters who don’t want America to continue mired in an endless war in the Middle East.”
Rep. Dwight Evans added: “A majority of Americans are sick and tired of this president’s reckless warmongering.”
The White House
President Trump dismissed the resolution as a “political move by the Democrats to pressure President Trump and undermine America’s position.” He had previously vetoed a similar war powers measure in May 2020, calling it “very insulting” and an attack on his authority as commander in chief. In that veto statement, Trump argued that the resolution “implies that the president’s constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack”—a claim he flatly rejected as incorrect.
Republican Leadership
Republicans opposing the measure argued it undermines Trump and U.S. negotiators at a critical juncture. House Republican leadership noted that the administration was actively engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran, and that the resolution would weaken America’s bargaining position.
The Road Ahead – What Happens Next?
The House vote was only the first step in a lengthy legislative process. Here is the likely trajectory:
Step Status as of June 3 Outlook
House passage Passed (215-208) Achieved
Senate consideration Pending Uncertain – Republican-controlled Senate has not yet passed a similar war powers resolution this year
Presidential veto Anticipated Trump has already indicated he will veto
Veto override attempt Unlikely Would require two-thirds majority in both chambers (290 votes in House, 67 in Senate)
The resolution now moves to the Senate. However, seven previous attempts to advance a similar measure in the Senate had already failed. Even if the Senate were to pass the measure, President Trump’s veto is virtually certain. An override would require a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers, a threshold that has not been met.
Broader Context – Nuclear Diplomacy and Regional Escalation
The war powers vote occurred against a backdrop of intense diplomatic activity. On the very same day the House passed the resolution, President Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office about ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations. He said talks were progressing “very well” and did not rule out a breakthrough agreement “as early as this weekend.”
Trump reiterated his goal of maximizing control over Tehran’s nuclear materials, stating: “We will come and get it.” He also pledged that the strategic Strait of Hormuz shipping lane would be reopened “immediately after the signing” of a memorandum of understanding or formal agreement with Tehran.
This diplomatic push suggests the administration is attempting to achieve a negotiated settlement while simultaneously resisting congressional constraints on its military authority. The central question remains unresolved: Does the president have the unilateral authority to wage a prolonged war without congressional approval? The House answered “no” on June 3, but the final word—legally and politically—is far from settled.
Key Takeaways
· The House of Representatives voted 215-208 to pass a War Powers Resolution restricting President Trump’s ability to continue military operations against Iran without congressional authorization.
· Four Republicans broke ranks with their party to join Democrats, providing the critical margin for passage.
· The resolution invokes the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires presidents to terminate unauthorized military operations within 60 days—a deadline that expired on May 1, nearly five weeks before the vote.
· Despite House passage, the resolution remains largely symbolic; it faces an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled Senate and an almost certain presidential veto.
· The vote reflects deepening unease within Congress—including among the president’s own party—about the direction and duration of the U.S. military campaign in Iran.
· The administration argues that national security requires broad executive authority, while Congress maintains that the Constitution reserves war powers primarily for the legislative branch—a constitutional struggle that has persisted for decades.
· The resolution simultaneously directs the president to cease hostilities and protects the United States’ ability to respond to imminent armed attacks, highlighting the delicate balance between oversight and security.
Final Takeaway
The June 3 House vote was a constitutional showdown in miniature. It pitted the executive branch’s claim to broad commander-in-chief powers against Congress’s constitutional war-making authority. While the resolution’s immediate practical effects may be limited—given the legislative hurdles still ahead—its political message is unmistakable: after three months of war with Iran, even President Trump’s own party is beginning to have serious second thoughts.
The 215-208 margin, the defection of four Republicans, and the expiration of the 60-day War Powers deadline together marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle between Congress and the White House. Whether the Senate follows suit, whether the president vetoes the measure, and whether Congress can override that veto remain open questions. But one thing is clear: the debate over who decides when America goes to war—and for how long—is far from over.