US House Moves To Pull Forces From Iran as Seven Republicans Join Democrats as Costs Climb Past $38B

The House of Representatives has voted for a third time to direct Donald Trump to end American hostilities against Iran, hours after the Congressional Budget Office put the cost to the Pentagon at £28 billion ($38 billion).

The concurrent resolution, led by Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, passed 220 to 204 late on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, with seven Republicans joining every Democrat. Three of them backed such a measure for the first time, up from four on each of the two previous attempts this summer.

The measure directs the president to remove US armed forces from hostilities with Iran, with an exception for personnel needed to defend American and allied bases, and its practical effect is disputed.

The Third Vote and the Three New Defections

The measure invokes Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. Seven Republicans backed it, an increase from the four Republican votes recorded on each of the previous two measures, and Democrats have spent much of 2026 pressing lawmakers to take recorded votes on a conflict Congress has not specifically authorised.

Two of the seven came from Iowa. Congressman Zach Nunn said in his statement that with the negotiating window closed, sustained combat operations now require congressional authorisation. He was joined by Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

The rest of the conference held firm. Representative Marlin Stutzman of Indiana told Fox News Digital that the president had done a good job managing the situation and that Republicans needed to stand with him, arguing Trump had kept his promise not to let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon.

A separate move went further. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky filed articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on the same day, accusing him of authorising military action without congressional approval. Filing articles is not the same as securing a vote on them, and none has been scheduled.

What the Budget Office Found

The cost estimate landed the same day. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that operations had cost the Defense Department about £28 billion ($38 billion) as of 1 August 2026, a figure covering munitions, equipment losses, additional flying hours, other operations and higher fuel costs, and projected that each further month could add roughly £1.5 billion to £2.2 billion ($2 billion to $3 billion) depending on the intensity of the fighting.

Munitions account for a large share. The CBO estimated that replacing the munitions expended during the conflict would cost about £16 billion ($21.7 billion), including roughly £9.7 billion ($13.1 billion) for missile-defence interceptors, and reported that the use of those interceptors had reduced American inventories to the point where replenishment could take at least five years.

The economic effect reaches beyond the Pentagon ledger. The office projected that inflation would be 0.5 percentage points higher in the first quarter of 2027 than it would have been without the conflict, a relative increase against its own baseline rather than a flat rise in prices.

A large funding request remains outstanding. The White House asked Congress in June for £65 billion ($87.6 billion) in supplemental funding, including about £49 billion ($67.1 billion) earmarked for the Pentagon, and that request had not been approved when the House voted.

Why the Resolution May Change Little

The vote may have limited immediate practical effect, even though supporters invoke a statutory mechanism intended to restrict the president's ability to continue hostilities.

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution establishes a 60-day period, subject to exceptions, after which a president must end the use of armed forces unless Congress has declared war, passed a specific authorisation or extended the period, with up to 30 further days for withdrawal if the president certifies that the time is needed to remove forces safely. Supporters of the resolution argue that the window closed long ago.

The mechanism itself is contested. The Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v Chadha held that congressional actions exercising legislative power must generally satisfy bicameralism and presentment, and legal analysts have questioned whether Section 5(c) survives that reasoning. The court did not rule on the War Powers Resolution directly, and the question remains unresolved.

The administration rejects the premise. It has argued that the president is acting within his constitutional authority as commander in chief and that the resolution would improperly restrict his ability to protect American forces and national security interests. Trump has previously described such votes as meaningless.

The Senate is the next stage. Senators have agreed to discharge an earlier House-passed measure, H.Con.Res.89, from the Foreign Relations Committee and take it up no later than 2 October, setting up a further test of whether Congress can force an end to American involvement.