Senate rejects resolution to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine won congressional approval of a similar resolution to prevent the use of the military in Iran during Trump's first term, but the president vetoed it.
WASHINGTON – The Senate voted against curbing President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran after the U.S. bombing of nuclear facilities and the fragile cease-fire that resulted.
The 47 to 53 vote on June 27 killed the measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, which would have required a congressional vote before using the military against Iran again. His resolution was one of at least three pending in Congress that represented a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country.
Trump argued as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But Democrats note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
What is a war-powers resolution?
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.
'It's a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more,' Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said of the resolution.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said forcing a congressional vote before military operations 'would paralyze this country.' Congress could cut off funding if lawmakers chose to do that, Graham said.
'This is a case study of the chaos that would be created,' Graham said.
Trump told reporters at a June 27 White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," Trump said.
Congress serves as check on 'dogs of war': Schiff
Kaine had 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.
Despite a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, Kaine said the framers of the Constitution placed the decision for declaring war into the hands of Congress even when George Washington was president.
'I pray the cease-fire continues but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor,' Kaine said. 'War is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way.'
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, said terminating the use of military weapons against Iran doesn't restrict the country from defending itself or sharing intelligence with Israel.
'There must be a check on the dogs of war,' Schiff said.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said wars are easy to start but often hard to end.
'Let's be clear: the threat was not imminent,' Merkley said. 'The administration instead acted precipitously, putting American lives at risk.'
Two similar war-power resolutions are pending in the House
Two similar resolutions are pending in the House. Votes could come in mid-July.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, 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.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941. But he said 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."
Americans concerned about Iran retaliating for bombing: poll
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran crown prince: Israel weakened Iran regime. World must help finish the job
The international community's support of the Iranian people is crucial. The world must impose maximum pressure on the regime while offering maximum support to Iranians. The Islamic Republic once again dragged Iran into a war that was not ours. The missiles that flew between Tehran and Tel Aviv in recent days were the inevitable consequence of 46 years of terrorism, proxy warfare and reckless nuclear blackmail by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his regime. But within this dangerous situation lies an unprecedented opportunity − one that the Iranian people intend to capitalize on and the international community cannot afford to miss. The regime's response will be brutal. It is a wounded animal and is already lashing out by arresting and attacking Iranians. The regime's response to Israel's strikes on nuclear facilities and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leadership reveals everything the world needs to know about those who have hijacked my beloved Iran. While claiming to defend Iranian sovereignty, they have systematically destroyed it. While promising strength, they have made Iran weaker and more isolated than ever. This was not Iran's war − it was Ali Khamenei's. It was the response of a desperate, flailing regime. Iranian people fill me with pride For more than four decades, I have advocated for nonviolent civil disobedience as the path to Iran's liberation. I have watched with immense pride as the Iranian people have risen time and again − in 1999, 2009, 2017, 2019 and most recently in 2022, after the death of Mahsa Amini while in custody of the "morality police." Each uprising has grown stronger, each protest has been more unified and each time, more voices have joined the call for fundamental change. The regime's foundation is cracking, and these recent military exchanges might have weakened it to the point of collapse. The Islamic Republic is profoundly weak. Behind the bluster and ballistic missiles lies a regime that has lost the support of its own people. Iranian protesters chant for the end of the Islamic Republic, desperately hoping for support to end this theocratic system. They know that external strikes − whether from Israel, the United States or another nation − will not achieve the fundamental transformation Iran needs. Real change must come from within. It must come from the Iranian people themselves, through coordinated nationwide strikes, sustained civil disobedience and mass demonstrations that make it impossible for this regime to function. The power to liberate Iran lies not in foreign militaries, but in the hands of Iranian workers, students, women and all those who dream of freedom. That is why the international community's support is so crucial at this pivotal moment. The world must impose maximum pressure on the regime while offering maximum support to the Iranian people. Opinion: I fled Iran as a child. Regime change will come only when the world allows it. This means comprehensive sanctions that target regime officials and their economic networks, while ensuring internet access reaches ordinary Iranians. It means amplifying the voices of Iranian civil society and providing secure communication tools that allow protesters to organize safely. It means diplomatic isolation of the regime while maintaining channels of support for the democratic opposition. The timing has never been more favorable. The regime is internally divided, economically weakened and internationally isolated. Its military commanders know that continuing this path leads to destruction. The officers and Revolutionary Guardsmen who reach out to me understand that their survival depends on abandoning Khamenei's failing leadership. Even regime insiders are beginning to consider whether their interests lie with a declining theocracy or a new, democratic Iran. Iranians are ready to take to the streets But windows of opportunity do not remain open indefinitely. The Iranian people are ready to finish what they have started in their previous rounds of protests. They are prepared to take to the streets in numbers that will dwarf previous uprisings. What they need now is the knowledge that the world stands with them − not with empty words, but with concrete actions that tip the balance decisively in their favor. The international community must understand that supporting the Iranian people's struggle for freedom is not just a moral imperative − it is a strategic necessity. Opinion: I survived war in Iran. There are millions like me whose lives are not theoretical. A democratic Iran would end the proxy wars that have destabilized the Middle East for decades. It would eliminate the nuclear threat that keeps the region on edge. It would restore Iran to its rightful place as a force for stability and progress rather than chaos and destruction. The regime leaders' decision to escalate this conflict with Israel demonstrates their complete disregard for Iranian lives and interests. They are willing to risk everything to preserve their grip on power. This recklessness should serve as a final wake-up call to anyone who still believes this regime can be reformed or reasoned with. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Today's missiles may capture the world's attention, but tomorrow's freedom will be won in Iran's streets, factories and universities. The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they possess the courage to confront tyranny. Now they need the international community to match their bravery with moral courage and meaningful support. The regime is weak. The people are ready. The moment is here. Let us not allow it to pass. Iran will be free, and when it is, the entire Middle East will be more peaceful and secure. The world must choose: Continue to manage this crisis, or help the Iranian people end it once and for all. Reza Pahlavi is the crown prince of Iran. He has advocated from exile for nonviolent resistance to Iran's Islamic Republic for more than four decades. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.
40 minutes ago
Israel-Iran live updates: Senate rejects war powers resolution limiting Trump
6 Updates Jun 26, 2025, 4:41 PM EDT Israel says it did not destroy all enriched uranium in Iran, tried to assassinate Khamenei Israel did not destroy all of Iran's highly enriched uranium and tried to kill Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during its operation, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in an interview to Channel 13 on Thursday evening. When asked about the 408 kilograms of highly enriched uranium the Iranians had before the war and if it was moved inside Iran or taken out of the country, Katz said, "It was clear from the outset of our attack that we would not eliminate all of the material. The shared U.S.-Israeli position is that the Iranians will be asked to hand over that material." Israel tried during the war with Iran to assassinate Khamanei, but there was "no operational opportunity to do so," Katz said. He laughed off the suggestion Israel would need "permission" from the U.S. He denied it was "forbidden" by the U.S. Iran still evaluating if and how they will continue work with IAEA, remain in NPT, Iranian FM says Iran is still evaluating if and how they will work with the International Atomic Energy Agency in light of a new bill passed in Iran's Parliament Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Iranian state TV Thursday. Whether or not Iran will stay in the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, also known as the NPT, needs to be investigated, Araghchi said. Iran will "act accordingly with the interest of the country," he added. One of the reasons Iran cannot maintain the same relationship with the IAEA as it had before the 12-day war is because the IAEA did not condemn Israel and the US's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, he said. "The IAEA Director-General should have done this," referring to condemning Israel and the U.S.'s attacks on Iran's' nuclear facilities, Araghchi said. 'Attacking nuclear facilities is an unforgivable crime from international law." Araghchi said the law passed by Iran's Parliament will be further investigated by the Iranian government and said the new law hasn't completely blocked a path for cooperation with the IAEA. "We need to perform more legal work on this law and decide how we can set our relations with the IAEA," Araghchi said. The IAEA inspections have stopped inside Iran, Araghchi said. Jun 26, 2025, 3:42 PM EDT Iran has not reached an agreement to resume negotiations with the US, Iranian FM says Iran has not reached an agreement to return to negotiations with the U.S. on its nuclear program and no date for a potential meeting to re-start the negotiations has been set, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Iranian state TV Thursday. Araghchi said speculation about negotiations resuming should not be taken seriously. "I would like to state clearly that no agreement, appointment or conversation has been made to start new negotiations," Araghchi said. Araghchi also said the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran will only be more difficult after the U.S. and Israel's military actions. "The next negotiations won't be any easier for the Americans compared to the previous ones," Araghchi said. "Human beings have been killed for it. It's not possible to make an agreement on it as easy as before." Jun 26, 2025, 2:45 PM EDT Iran will not change its position on nuclear program, foreign ministry says Iran will not change its position regarding its nuclear program despite the military action taken by the U.S. and Israel, Esmaeil Baghaei, a foreign ministry spokesperson, told Iranian state media on Thursday. "We have shown that pressure, intimidation, threats, and even the use of naked force against a sovereign state, in violation of all international standards and norms, cannot undermine our rights. Our rights remain intact," Baghaei told IRNA in a lengthy interview published Thursday. Baghaei also addressed accusations that Iran was looking to prolong the negotiations with the U.S. that had been scheduled to take place in Oman before Israel attacked. "All of these cases show that the American side was not serious about the negotiations from the beginning. But this does not diminish the value of the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In my opinion, Iran's entry into these negotiations truly exposed the hypocrisy and lies of the other side," Baghaei said. "History will record that in the midst of a diplomatic process between Iran and a party that considers itself a global power, Iran's logic prevailed, and they failed to meet this logic. For this reason, they encouraged and supported their proxy in the region to attack Iran," Baghaei added. On the calls to resume negotiations with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear program, Baghaei said, "First, we never trusted the other side. Because sometimes some words are used, such as 'the recent incident caused trust between Iran and America to decrease' or 'to disappear,' while we basically never trusted [them]. One of the reasons for this is the events that we are witnessing now. We were talking to the other side in an atmosphere of absolute distrust. The reason for this distrust is their history of breaking promises." -ABC News' Othon Leyva
