A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 126
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-19: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-10T09:06:02Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 126) aims to assert Congress's constitutional authority over military actions by directing the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from any ongoing or planned hostilities that lack a formal declaration of war or specific congressional authorization. It specifically targets unauthorized military operations against certain terrorist organizations, states hosting them, and non-state groups involved in illegal drug trafficking, in response to recent U.S. strikes on vessels suspected of drug-related activities.
Key Provisions
- Findings (Section 1): Congress outlines several key facts, including:
- The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).
- No congressional declaration of war or specific authorization exists for using military force against organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations (under the Immigration and Nationality Act) or specially designated global terrorists (under Executive Order 13224) after February 20, 2025, the states where they operate, or non-state groups promoting illegal drug trafficking.
- Such designations do not legally authorize presidential use of force.
- No armed attack on the U.S. has occurred from these entities.
- Recent U.S. military strikes on vessels (September 2 and 15, 2025) trigger the War Powers Resolution (a 1973 law requiring congressional notification and potential approval for military actions), as they involve hostilities or imminent risk thereof.
- Congress lacks sufficient details from the executive branch about the strikes, including vessel affiliations, threats posed, justifications for force, and legal bases.
- Congress supports anti-drug efforts and is open to providing resources or authorities if requested by the President, but emphasizes non-military tools like intelligence and law enforcement.
- The President notified Congress of the first strike on September 4, 2025, hinting at possible further actions without a clear end date.
- Termination of Use of Armed Forces (Section 2):
- Directs the President to end all use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities against the specified entities unless Congress explicitly authorizes it via a war declaration or specific statute.
- Invokes expedited congressional procedures (under the Department of State Authorization Act of 1984 and the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976) to ensure quick consideration of such resolutions.
- Rule of Construction: Clarifies that the resolution does not prevent U.S. self-defense against actual or imminent armed attacks, or the use of military in authorized counternarcotics operations supporting civilian authorities. It explicitly states that drug trafficking alone does not qualify as an armed attack.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Reinforces the War Powers Resolution by applying it directly to recent strikes and mandating termination of unauthorized actions, potentially limiting executive flexibility in initiating military operations without congressional input.
- Establishes that post-February 20, 2025, terrorist or drug-related designations do not automatically grant presidential authority for force, closing a potential loophole in how executive orders (like those for sanctions) have been interpreted.
- No new laws are created, but it uses existing expedited procedures to compel withdrawal, which could set a precedent for faster congressional oversight of military engagements.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Defense and intelligence agencies may face restrictions on operations against drug cartels or new terrorist groups, shifting focus to non-lethal tools like interdiction at ports or diplomatic efforts. The State Department could see increased demands for information sharing with Congress.
- On Citizens: U.S. taxpayers might benefit from reduced military spending on unauthorized actions, but it could indirectly affect domestic anti-drug efforts if international operations are curtailed, potentially leading to more drugs entering the U.S.
- On International Relations: Could strain ties with countries hosting targeted entities (e.g., in Latin America for drug trafficking), signaling U.S. reluctance for unilateral strikes and encouraging multilateral approaches. It might embolden adversaries by limiting U.S. military responses to emerging threats.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Congress: Gains stronger leverage over war powers, enabling quicker votes on military withdrawals.
- Executive Branch (President, DoD, State Department): Faces direct mandates to halt operations, requiring justification for any continued actions and potential requests to Congress for new authorizations.
- U.S. Military Personnel: Could be withdrawn from specific hostilities, reducing risks in unauthorized missions but limiting their role in global anti-drug or counterterrorism efforts.
- International Actors: Designated terrorist organizations, drug trafficking groups, and host nations may face less immediate U.S. military pressure, while allies in anti-drug coalitions (e.g., in the Western Hemisphere) might need to adjust joint operations.
- U.S. Public and Advocacy Groups: Anti-war organizations and civil liberties advocates may support it for curbing executive overreach, while law enforcement and anti-drug groups could oppose limits on military tools.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: Directly invokes Congress's war declaration power, challenging potential executive claims of inherent authority under Article II, and could lead to Supreme Court review if enforced against presidential objections.
- Legal: Applies the War Powers Resolution without debating the strikes' legality under domestic or international law (e.g., rules on use of force or human rights), but highlights gaps in transparency. The expedited procedures ensure the resolution bypasses normal legislative hurdles, making it harder to ignore.
- Political: Represents a bipartisan or oversight-focused push to rebalance war powers amid concerns over "forever wars" or unilateral actions; if passed, it could spark debates on U.S. global leadership, especially in countering drug threats without full congressional buy-in. Failure to pass might erode congressional credibility on foreign policy.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (55)
Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6], Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31], Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7] and 5 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-19: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- 2025-09-19: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-19: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress. — issued 2025-09-19 — PDF (6 pages)