Senate vote: Yea on H.Con.Res. 89 (Iran war powers)
U.S. Senator, Alaska
“On the Concurrent Resolution H.Con.Res. 89: A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Official Senate roll call on H.Con.Res. 89, a concurrent resolution directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Rejected 49-50 on September 24, 2026. Fetterman was the only Democratic nay; Republicans Collins, Murkowski, Paul and Tillis voted yea; Alsobrooks did not vote.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
On September 24, 2026, the Senate voted on H.Con.Res. 89, a concurrent resolution directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. The House had adopted the resolution 214-208 on July 23, 2026. The Senate rejected it 49-50.
After the quotation
Lisa Murkowski was one of four Republicans to vote yea, with Collins, Murkowski, Paul and Tillis. Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote nay.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Do they support the war in Iran?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Voted to direct the removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran, a vote to end U.S. involvement absent congressional authorization.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Do they support the war in Iran?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“He supports the war in Iran, which is making fuel prices go up”Read statement
“I support funding current operations to improve the odds of a peaceful resolution.”Read statement
“I would support requiring congressional authorization for a prolonged or expanding war with Iran rather than giving any President an open-ended commitment of American forces. At the same time, I would not support language that prevents the President from responding immediately to an imminent attack on the United States, American forces, or our allies.”Read statement