PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 19, 2025
This joint resolution directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against any organization designated on or after February 20, 2025, as a foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist, any states in which such entities operate, or any non-state organization engaged in illegal drug trafficking unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.
The resolution specifies that it shall not be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from an armed attack or the threat of an imminent armed attack or from using the U.S. Armed Forces in support of civil authorities as part of authorized counternarcotics operations.
People & committees
Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jul 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.126 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.126 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.126 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.126 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-09-19 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposed joint resolution would require the President to end military hostilities against certain organizations designated as terrorists, countries where they operate, and nongovernmental organizations involved in illegal drug trafficking, unless Congress explicitly authorizes those hostilities. It would preserve defense against armed attacks or imminent attacks and military support for authorized civilian counternarcotics operations. It states that drug trafficking alone does not qualify as an armed attack or imminent threat.
Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against any organization designated on or after February 20, 2025, as a foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist, any states in which those entities operate, or any non-state organization engaged in the promotion, trafficking, and distribution of illegal drugs and other related activities, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the United States from defending itself from an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack or using the United States Armed Forces in support of civil authorities as part of authorized counternarcotics operations. The trafficking of illegal drugs does not itself constitute such an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack.
The proposed termination requirement would cover organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations or specially designated global terrorists on or after February 20, 2025, and countries where those organizations operate. It would also separately cover nongovernmental organizations involved in promoting, trafficking, and distributing illegal drugs and related activities. A declaration of war or a specific authorization to use military force would provide an exception.
Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against any organization designated on or after February 20, 2025, as a foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist, any states in which those entities operate, or any non-state organization engaged in the promotion, trafficking, and distribution of illegal drugs and other related activities, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.
The proposal would preserve U.S. defense against an armed attack or an imminent armed attack, while expressly stating that illegal drug trafficking alone does not meet that standard. It would also preserve military support for civilian authorities during authorized operations against illegal drugs.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the United States from defending itself from an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack or using the United States Armed Forces in support of civil authorities as part of authorized counternarcotics operations. The trafficking of illegal drugs does not itself constitute such an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack.
The proposed findings assert that Congress alone has the constitutional power to declare war and has not declared war or specifically authorized military force against the listed organizations or countries. They also assert that a terrorist designation does not itself authorize presidential use of force. These are the resolution's stated legal positions.
(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress has not declared war upon, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force against— (A) any organization designated on or after February 20, 2025, as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)) or as a specially designated global terrorist pursuant to Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism); (B) any states in which those entities operate; or (C) any non-state organization engaged in the promotion, trafficking, and distribution of illegal drugs and other related activities.
(3) The designation of an entity as a foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist provides no legal authority for the President to use force against members of designated organizations or any foreign state.
The proposed findings state that the listed organizations and countries have not launched an armed attack on the United States. They characterize the September 2 and September 15, 2025, vessel strikes as hostilities, or circumstances clearly indicating imminent involvement in hostilities, under the War Powers Resolution. They leave unresolved whether the strikes violated domestic or international law.
(4) There has been no armed attack on the United States by— (A) any organization designated on or after February 20, 2025, as a foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist; (B) any states in which those entities operate; or (C) any non-state organization engaged in the promotion, trafficking, and distribution of illegal drugs and other related activities.
(5) The United States military strike on a vessel on September 2, 2025, and the subsequent United States military strike on a vessel on September 15, 2025, constitute, within the meaning of section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced. The application of the War Powers Resolution is without prejudice as to whether the strikes themselves violated United States domestic law, international humanitarian law, or international human rights law.
The proposed findings say Congress lacks sufficient information about the vessels, their destinations and threats, the justification for lethal force, nonlethal alternatives, and the legal basis for the strikes. They also report that the President notified Congress on September 4, 2025, about the September 2 strike and possible further strikes, with the scope and duration of operations uncertain.
(6) Congress has not received sufficient information regarding— (A) the vessels' passengers, cargo, or affiliation; (B) the vessels' intended destinations; (C) any threats the vessels posed to United States interests; (D) any justification for the use of lethal force against the vessels; (E) the availability of non-lethal means to interdict the vessels; or (F) the purported domestic authority or international legal basis to conduct the strikes.
(9) On September 4, 2025, the President formally notified Congress of the September 2, 2025, strike, noted the potential for further military strikes, and stated that it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that will be necessary to address the continuing threat of drug trafficking emanating from unspecified countries by unspecified organizations.
The findings express support for providing resources and legal authorities to combat illegal drug trafficking through intelligence, law enforcement, border personnel and technology, diplomacy, and appropriate military tools. They express willingness to consider additional presidential requests; this passage does not itself allocate money or grant new operational authority.
(8) Congress is resolved to provide resources and authorities to the executive branch to prevent and mitigate drug and narcotics trafficking into the United States, including through the use of intelligence, law enforcement, personnel, and detection technology at and between ports of entry and diplomatic and military tools as appropriate to deter, prevent, and prosecute illicit drug and narcotics trafficking, and will consider providing additional resources and authorities if they are requested by the President to combat the spread of illegal drugs.
The proposal invokes existing statutory procedures for requiring removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities. Its findings describe those procedures as expedited, meaning faster congressional consideration; they do not establish that such consideration actually occurred.
(7) Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), provides that any joint resolution or bill to require the removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Control Export Act of 1976.
Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on September 19, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-14T20:46:01Z. 2025-09-19: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2025-09-19: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-09-19. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI