Stand up for the facts!
Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy.
We need your help.
More Info
U.S. Navy sailors signal to an F-35C Lightning II on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln during operations in support of the war in Iran on March 3, 2026. (U.S. Navy/U.S. Central Command via AP)
For the first time during the current war with Iran, the House passed a resolution June 3 that could eventually force President Donald Trump to step back from military attacks. The House vote came about two weeks after the Senate voted to advance its own resolution , which has similar but not identical terms.
The legislative jockeying over the War Powers Resolution comes amid public opposition to the war and its effects, including higher gasoline prices from Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. and Israeli attacks.
The House vote passed 215-208, with four Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joining Democrats in supporting it.
The Senate vote , on May 19, was 50-47, with several senators not voting. Four Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana joined all Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who sided with the bulk of Republicans. The Senate vote was a procedural one rather than a final vote; it discharged the measure from a committee, where it had been stalled.
"The Democrats are fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome," Trump posted a day after the House vote. "They would rather have our Country fail than give me another, of many, victories. The four Republicans, that’s a whole other story - They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves."
For the war’s critics, the House and Senate votes amounted to progress. But there’s still a long way to go before congressional action can stop Trump from continuing the war.
Here is a rundown of the next steps.
What is the War Powers Resolution?
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the right to declare war. The last time Congress declared war was at the beginning of World War II, when Franklin Roosevelt was president.
Since then, presidents have generally initiated military action using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without an official declaration of war.
In August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress to back his effort to widen the U.S. role in Vietnam. He received it with enactment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution , which passed both chambers of Congress, including the Senate, with only two dissenting votes.
As the Vietnam War turned sour, lawmakers became increasingly frustrated at their secondary role in sending U.S. troops abroad. So in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution , which was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto.
The resolution required that, in the absence of a declaration of war, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
In recent decades, congressional consent has usually been accomplished by the passage of an "authorization for the use of military force." Unlike his predecessors, Trump did not present Congress with an authorization request.
During Trump’s first term, Congress passed two resolutions to limit his war powers, although neither had enough votes to overcome his veto. One, in 2019, was to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. The other, in 2020, was to block further U.S. action after Trump ordered a strike that killed a top Iranian official, Qasem Soleimani.
During Trump’s second term, the House and Senate have both been under Republican control, and most Republicans have been willing to let Trump pursue overseas military action without explicit congressional permission.
In June 2025, the Senate voted against advancing a war powers resolution on Iran.
A subsequent resolution , on Trump’s decision to use military force to arrest Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, narrowly failed.
What are the next steps?
The 60-day deadline to end hostilities without congressional permission arrived May 1, but, using a novel argument, Trump declared military action "terminated" because of a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. The move glossed over the fact that hostilities have continued periodically, with a large deployment of U.S. forces in the region and U.S. naval ships patrolling the strait.
"Party loyalty is a powerful force on Capitol Hill, and Republican leaders in the House and Senate will be strongly incentivized to let the Trump White House use military force without congressional approval," Mat…
Read the full article at PolitiFact →📄Source document: AAA→18 reports
Breitbart NewsIndependentRight3 days agoVice President JD Vance stated during a press conference that President Donald Trump's peace plan is already showing positive results for Americans, citing increased oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, declining gas prices, and Iranian compliance with the agreement by refraining from attacking ships. Vance emphasized that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been significantly damaged and its ability to threaten regional stability has diminished.
Bias read (Right): The article presents the Trump administration's actions and outcomes in a favorable light, emphasizing successes such as lower gas prices and Iranian compliance without providing counterpoints or critical perspectives. The framing highlights achievements attributed to the Trump administration, align
Official sources cited
- government Vice President JD Vance Press Conference Statement
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter3 days agoU.S. gasoline prices fell below $4 per gallon for the first time in nearly three months, reaching $3.99, according to AAA. This decrease follows a rise in global oil prices due to the war in Iran. A preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran aims to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which had been largely closed since the conflict began on February 28. The reopening has allowed more commercial ships to pass through the strait. International crude oil prices also declined, with Brent crude falling to $78.46 per barrel and West Texas Intermediate dropping to $75.10 per barrel.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about changes in gas prices and their connection to geopolitical events without overtly favoring any political perspective. It includes data from AAA and mentions both the increase in prices due to the Iran war and the subsequent decline following potential U
QuartzIndependentCenter3 days agoGas prices in the United States have fallen below $4 per gallon, but experts indicate that full recovery to pre-war levels with Iran may take several years. Current prices remain approximately one-third higher than they were prior to the conflict.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly favoring any political perspective. It includes expert opinions and provides context regarding the ongoing effects of the war with Iran on gas prices, maintaining a balanced tone.
Official sources cited
- statement Experts' Analysis
ABC News (US)IndependentCenter3 days agoU.S. gas prices have fallen below $4 per gallon for the first time since March, according to AAA. This decline follows President Donald Trump signing an agreement with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program. The agreement includes Iran diluting its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and waiving U.S.-backed sanctions. Gas prices vary significantly by state, with California averaging $5.64 per gallon and South Carolina averaging $3.58 per gallon. Additionally, U.S. crude oil prices have dropped 14% this month.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about gas prices and their correlation with international agreements without overtly favoring any political perspective. It mentions both the decrease in gas prices and the details of the U.S.-Iran agreement neutrally, providing context about varying state-by
The Washington TimesIndependentRight3 days agoU.S. gas prices have fallen below $4 per gallon for the first time since March, according to AAA. This decrease followed a 15% drop in U.S. crude oil prices this month and came after President Donald Trump signed an agreement with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program. However, gas prices vary significantly by state, with California averaging $5.64 per gallon and South Carolina averaging $3.58 per gallon. The agreement includes a 60-day negotiation period for a final deal on Iran's nuclear program.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the agreement with Iran as offering 'several benefits up front while extracting little in return,' which implies skepticism toward the deal. Additionally, the mention of Trump 'leaving the door open to resume attacks' could be seen as emphasizing potential risks associated with de
AxiosIndependentCenter3 days agoThe U.S. national average gas price has fallen below $4 a gallon, according to AAA, marking a decrease after months of high prices linked to tensions in Iran. The drop follows reports of an extended ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran, which aims to ease oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Despite this, U.S. pump prices are expected to stay above pre-war levels. Diesel prices remain above $5 per gallon but have also decreased from recent peaks. The article notes that while gas prices have eased, President Trump faces continued political challenges related to the issue, as manyU
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about gas price changes and provides context regarding geopolitical factors such as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire. It mentions both the economic impact and political implications without overtly favoring one side. The framing remains neutral, presenting facts and a
SlateIndependentCenter3 days agoThe article discusses the ongoing economic impact of Trump's policies, particularly focusing on the effects of his dealings with Iran. It notes that even if the conflict is ending, the economic consequences continue to unfold. The piece references oil price fluctuations following Trump's announcement of a deal with Iran, emphasizing that the situation has moved far from what was considered 'normal.'
Bias read (Center): The article presents an economic analysis without overtly favoring one political side. It references an economist and discusses market reactions objectively, avoiding loaded language or one-sided sourcing.
Associated PressIndependentCenter4 days agoThe article states that higher prices for gas, groceries, and flights are expected to persist beyond the Iran war.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a general economic observation without taking a stance or using biased language. It does not favor any particular political perspective.
MarketWatchParty-alignedCenter6 days agoThe average retail gasoline price was just above the psychologically significant $4-per-gallon mark on Monday.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual statement about current gas prices without taking a stance or providing context that would indicate a particular ideological leaning. It does not include commentary, predictions, or framing that suggests a political bias.
The Washington TimesIndependentCenter6 days ago Oil supplies could take months to return to normal after Iran deal, energy experts sayEnergy experts suggest it may take several months for oil supplies to return to normal levels following an agreement to end the conflict in Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Despite this development, high oil and gasoline prices and energy supply issues are expected to persist for some time due to the slow resumption of operations by energy companies. Ships carrying crude oil have been stuck in the Persian Gulf for over three months, unable to pass through the strait, which handles approximately 20% of global oil and gasoline shipments. Daniel Evans, global head of fuels and refining at S&
Bias read (Center): The article presents information from energy experts without overtly favoring any political perspective. It reports on the economic impact of geopolitical events but does not exhibit clear bias toward either side.
AxiosIndependentCenter9 days ago When oil prices could get even worseAnalysts warn that oil prices could rise sharply later this summer if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, potentially leading to higher gasoline prices and economic challenges for major oil-importing nations. While President Trump suggested an imminent deal with Iran, the situation remains uncertain. Current oil prices are at their lowest in three months, but concerns remain about potential surges if supply constraints persist.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view of the potential risks to oil prices without overtly favoring any political perspective. It includes quotes from analysts, mentions President Trump's comments, and references market data without apparent ideological framing.
Official sources cited
- organisation Macquarie Investment Firm Report
- organisation Washington Post
The HillIndependentCenter10 days agoPresident Trump is facing increased tensions with Iran following recent military actions, including the downing of a U.S. attack helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz, which appears to have been caused by an Iranian drone. This incident has raised concerns about a potential escalation in hostilities between the two nations. At the same time, Trump is reportedly cautious about returning to full-scale war due to domestic political pressures, particularly with midterm elections approaching. Recent economic data show rising inflation, linked in part to increased oil prices following the U.S.-Israel
Bias read (Center): The article presents facts without overtly favoring one side, providing information on both the geopolitical tensions involving Iran and the economic implications of these events. It does not use loaded language or selectively present sources to support a particular viewpoint.
QuartzIndependentCenter12 days ago Oil is falling again on Trump's Iran deal talk. Stocks are rising. The pattern is starting to feel familiarU.S. stock futures rose on Tuesday, with chip stocks continuing to recover from the previous week's selloff. Crude oil prices fell following comments from President Trump about a potential Iran deal.
Bias read (Center): The article is a brief, factual market update reporting price movements without loaded language or favoring any political side.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Right13 days agoIn a lengthy interview with NBC’s 'Meet the Press,' the president again vowed that gas prices would go down when the war in Iran ends.
Bias read (Right): The article presents the president's claims without critical examination or counterpoints, using direct quotes that align with his stated positions. The framing emphasizes the president's assertions without contextualizing them with alternative viewpoints or evidence.
The HillIndependentLeft14 days ago Sunday shows preview: Trump faces GOP headwinds as midterms nearPresident Trump is set to appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press' following a challenging week characterized by declining approval ratings and internal conflicts within the Republican Party. As the midterm elections approach, Trump faces increasing political pressure regarding the economy and the ongoing conflict with Iran. Rising gas prices linked to the war have contributed to his historically low approval ratings. Internal GOP divisions were evident during a lengthy Senate vote, where several Republicans supported Democratic amendments opposing Trump's initiatives such as the abandoned 'anti-weakn
Bias read (Left): The article frames Trump as facing significant challenges and criticism from within his own party, emphasizing his declining approval ratings and the opposition he faces on key issues like the Iran war and military aid for Ukraine. It highlights bipartisan efforts against Trump's policies, which is
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter14 days ago Gas prices drop slightly 14 weeks into Iran warCBS News reported that gas prices have dropped slightly 14 weeks into the Iran war. The article also mentions President Trump visiting rural Wisconsin and speaking with farmers about an upcoming economic rebound, with reporter Olivia Rinaldi covering the event.
Bias read (Center): The article briefly mentions gas prices and the Iran war but does not provide enough context or framing to determine a clear ideological slant. It includes a separate report on Trump's visit without overtly biased language or emphasis.
PolitiFactIndependentCenter16 days agoThe House passed a resolution on June 3 that could potentially compel President Donald Trump to halt military actions against Iran. This follows a Senate vote on May 19 that advanced a similar but not identical resolution. The resolutions come amid public opposition to the ongoing conflict with Iran, including concerns over rising gas prices due to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz following U.S. and Israeli attacks. The House vote passed 215-208, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support. The Senate vote was 50-47, with four Republicans joining all Democrats except Senator John
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the passage of resolutions related to the War Powers Resolution and does not exhibit clear bias in framing, word choice, emphasis, or sourcing. It provides details about both the House and Senate votes without apparent ideological slant.
Official sources cited
- organisation U.S. Navy/U.S. Central Command via AP
PoliticoParty-alignedCenter19 days agoRep. Ashley Hinson, a potential GOP Senate candidate in Iowa, expressed concern that an extended Iran war could become a 'political liability' due to rising gas prices and potential American casualties. She acknowledged the loss of Iowa soldiers but reiterated support for completing the mission and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Hinson's comments without overtly favoring one side. It includes direct quotes from Hinson and contextualizes her position within broader Republican concerns about the war's impact. There is no evident editorializing or biased language.
United States