Loading record
Public disputes concerning political parties, public officials, institutions, political conduct, and governance in the United States.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: March 5, 2026 to September 15, 2026
2 matching statements. Dates: March 5, 2026 to September 15, 2026
3 published statements. Dates: March 5, 2026 to September 22, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. Representative, Arizona 5th district
Statement summary
Andy Biggs voted Nay on H.Con.Res. 93, the House resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
“On Agreeing to the Resolution: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Official House roll call 307 on H.Con.Res. 93, directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Agreed to 220-204 on September 15, 2026, during the 60-day U.S.-Iran ceasefire. As a concurrent resolution it was not presented to the President.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)A nay vote opposed the resolution directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, allowing U.S. military operations in the war to continue.
Role at the time: Andy Biggs is a Republican politician in Arizona and a candidate for governor. He represents Arizona's 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House. He previously held office in the Arizona legislature, including as president of the state Senate.
Statement summary
Biggs defends the operation as limited, strategic and within the president’s constitutional authority.
“The President’s actions were limited and strategic, consistent with longstanding precedent used by both Republican and Democrat administrations.”
His full statement explains opposition to the withdrawal resolution while affirming Congress’s general constitutional role. He supports the stated mission of protecting Americans, dismantling the regime’s regional threat and preventing nuclear weapons.
The case concerns U.S. military involvement in the 2026 Iran war. Biggs defends the operation as limited, strategic and within the president’s constitutional authority.
