Dems try to curb Trump's use of military in Iran

The Herald Scotland

3 days ago

Trump argues as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But lawmakers note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
Votes on the measures in the Senate and House also carry political implications amid fears of Iranian retaliation, as numerous lawmakers weigh campaigns for president in 2028.
Here is what we know about the war-powers debate:
What will the Senate be voting on?
Kaine introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump.
"I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran - a third war in the Middle East since 2001 - would be a catastrophic blunder for this country," Kaine said on the Senate floor June 17.
Under Senate rules, the measure has an expedited path to a floor vote by June 27. Because senators are expected to be debating Trump's tax and policy legislative package at the end of the week, the vote could come sooner.
More: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate: What to know
Kaine said June 24 that the vote could come June 26 or 27, after Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide lawmakers a classified briefing on the bombing.
The Senate debate comes amid a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, which Trump criticized both countries for violating.
"I think they both violated it," Trump told reporters at the White House on June 24 before leaving for a NATO meeting in the Netherlands. "I'm not sure they did it intentionally. They couldn't rein people back."
What is the War Powers Act?
The Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare war."
In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed.
"There is only one Commander in Chief, and thank God it's President Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a former military lawyer, said on social media June 22. "To all those claiming he acted outside his authority, you are dead wrong."
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941, but there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said.
Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media.
"The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute."
Critics have questioned what was so urgent that required the strike June 21. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Johnson was wrong and the law is constitutional.
"There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening," Schumer told reporters June 24.
Some Republicans who have supported Trump opposed bombing Iran
Several Republicans who have supported Trump on other issues parted ways with him over bombing Iran. Two of the critics are Kentucky Republicans: Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie.
"There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she spent millions campaigning with Trump in 2024 but considered the attack a betrayal of his pledges to avoid foreign wars or try to change foreign governments.
More: 'Bait and switch': Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump's Iran strike
"It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" Greene said June 23 on social media. "Contrary to brainwashed Democrat boomers think and protest about, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and I can and DO have my own opinion."
House votes expected later
Two proposals are pending in the House. Massie introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees - Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services - introduced another.
"President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23.
War-powers resolutions used to be designated for a House floor vote within 48 hours. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, said a GOP change in House rules at the start of the Congress to hold such votes after 15 legislative days meant the vote might not happen for weeks.
"The question is what was the imminent threat to the United States of America," Jeffries told reporters June 24. "The question is what justified this particular action and was it even successful."
Johnson told reporters June 24 he didn't have the power to stop a privileged resolution. But he said he spoke with Massie, who agreed the resolution may not be needed if the cease-fire holds.
"We may not have to act upon that," Johnson said. "I hope we don't because it would be a terrible look and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway."
Polls show concerns about Iran conflict broadening
Uncertainty about how the conflict with Iran will play out carries potential political risks for lawmakers considering presidential campaigns in 2028.
"For most Democratic politicians, a vote in favor of the president's position involves significant risk and little benefit," said John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. "Whatever happens in Iran, any support for Trump will alienate core Democratic voters. That's especially true if things go badly."
"There's a flip side to that coin," Pitney added. "Republican lawmakers know that any departure from the president's position will anger the White House."
Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23.
Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
In 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001, some Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton supported the congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq.
But the lingering conflict became one of the political differences in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Obama, who wasn't yet serving in Congress for the Iraq vote but spoke out against the war, won the party's nomination en route to two terms in the White House.