The Senate voted 50 \u2014 48, with four Republicans joining all but one Democrat in favour of the resolution.<\/p>\n
Does this mean the war is going to end?<\/p>\n
Not exactly.<\/p>\n
There’s a big question mark over whether this measure is enforceable, according to legal experts.<\/p>\n
Senate calls for end to Iran war<\/a><\/p>\n It is the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50\u201348, is a stunning turnaround from past efforts.<\/p>\n While legislation usually needs a president’s signature to be signed into law, the War Powers Act of 1973<\/a> states that war powers resolutions are exempt.<\/p>\n A Supreme Court ruling from 1983 complicates that, though, saying such a measure does need to be submitted for a president’s signature or veto to have legal effect.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the White House has insisted the War Powers Act is not constitutional and therefore, not binding.<\/p>\n On Tuesday, a White House official said the resolution had no force of law because it would not go before the president.<\/p>\n Experts say the disagreement would need to be settled in the courts.<\/p>\n “The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it,” said Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the online legal publication Lawfare.<\/p>\n Democratic representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who sponsored the resolution in the House, said he viewed the resolution as binding and would pursue all legal avenues to ensure that the administration complies.<\/p>\n Gregory Meeks vowed to take the matter to court if the Trump administration does not comply. (Reuters: Kylie Cooper)<\/p>\n The Trump administration is also arguing about semantics: Congress has directed the government to stop the ongoing military action in Iran, but the White House says hostilities were terminated with a ceasefire on April 7.<\/p>\n It previously used this logic to get around a mandated 60-day deadline to end the war under the War Powers Act.<\/p>\n But John Hart, an American government specialist at the Australian National University, told the ABC in May the law referred to the commitment of troops, “and the troops are still there”.<\/p>\n So why does it matter?<\/p>\n There are a few reasons.<\/p>\n Until recently, Mr Trump had enjoyed near-unanimous support from Republican members of Congress.<\/p>\n Republicans currently hold majorities in the House and the Senate, and they don’t often break from the president on legislative issues.<\/p>\n Tuesday’s result reflects growing concerns among Republican politicians over the war.<\/p>\n Tuesday’s vote was a rare show of discord among Republicans. (Reuters: Evelyn Hockstein)<\/p>\n It also comes as the administration is expected to ask Congress to authorise tens of billions of dollars to pay for the war.<\/p>\n There’s a historic aspect, too. This was the first time both chambers of Congress passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from hostilities since the War Powers Act was enacted in 1973.<\/p>\n Why are Republicans siding with Democrats?<\/p>\n In the end, eight Republicans were enough to deliver majorities in both the House and the Senate and rebuke Mr Trump:<\/p>\n Republican representatives Tom Barrett (Michigan), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) voted in the House for the measure.Republican senators Bill Cassidy (Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) voted with Democrats today on a war powers resolution.<\/p>\n Midterm elections, which will decide the new makeup of the House and the Senate, are just months away, and politicians are hesitant to support unpopular measures.<\/p>\n And the war in Iran is deeply unpopular.<\/p>\n Mr Trump campaigned for the White House on a promise to end US entanglements abroad, and to focus more on domestic issues.<\/p>\n A Reuters\/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday<\/a> showed just one in four Americans believed the war was worth the costs.<\/p>\n The majority of respondents worried that a truce with Tehran was unlikely to last.<\/p>\n How did Trump respond?<\/p>\n Mr Trump responded on his Truth Social platform<\/a> on Tuesday night, calling the vote “poorly timed and meaningless”, adding that it “provided aid and comfort” to Iran.<\/p>\n He said the vote “just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done”.<\/p>\n Hasn’t a peace deal already been struck?<\/p>\n No.<\/p>\n Early results of US\u2013Iran talks<\/a><\/p>\n The US claims “great progress” has been made with Iran during the first substantial talks to take place under the new deal to pause the war, but there are already conflicting messages from Iran.\u00a0<\/p>\n A ceasefire remains in place as peace talks continue between the US and Israel.<\/p>\n![\"Meeks](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/84a8c3dd2b9ba65896ed275ceb8c86bc.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Trump's](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/f8f7967f43f1b9221c1258926f5233e8.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n