Cabinet sent the PMF law to parliament the day before the coalition’s mission ended

The Council of Ministers, meeting in its 21st regular session on Tuesday evening 29 September under al-Zaidi, voted to approve the PMF draft law and refer it to the Council of Representatives; Shafaq timestamped the decision 19:57 UTC. The prime minister’s office said the cabinet “voted in favour of the Popular Mobilisation Forces bill” and “approved referring the bill to parliament for a vote, in accordance with constitutional provisions,” in language carried by The National. The PMO framed the move as part of the government’s commitment to organising the administrative framework of security institutions and “in recognition of the sacrifices made” by PMF members. Rudaw Arabic reports the draft defines the PMF as part of the Iraqi armed forces and links it to the commander-in-chief; Rudaw English says it covers service, retirement and organisation, filling in the three-provision 2016 law that recognised the force without addressing its structure.

The bill has a history of dying. The current draft was approved under Mohammed Shia al-Sudani in February 2025 and stalled over retirement provisions and US opposition, The National reports; Rudaw identifies the sticking point as a retirement age of 60, which would have retired many veteran commanders. Rudaw also reports earlier iterations went further — a separate military academy, independent staff command and economic independence, modelled on the IRGC. Al-Zaidi sent the draft back to parliament in August. Shafaq reports, citing unnamed “informed sources” and uncorroborated elsewhere, that contentious provisions facing what those sources called a “US veto” were removed to get the two amended drafts moving, while some provisions still draw US objections. Until the text is published, nobody outside the cabinet knows which version this is.

Assessment: The sequencing is the argument. A bill institutionalising a 238,075-strong force — budgeted at 4.5 trillion dinars in 2024, composed of around 70 predominantly Shiite armed groups — cleared cabinet on the eve of the day Baghdad declared no weapons would remain outside state control. Both things can be true at once only if “state control” means absorbing the force rather than dissolving it. That is the policy, and it is coherent; it is simply not what disarmament means. Two cautions. The National characterises a standing US position against the bill, not a response to this vote — no dated Washington statement on 29 September has surfaced, and silence on the day of a declared withdrawal would itself be worth explaining. And the chamber that must now vote may still lack confirmed interior and defence ministers.