US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Senate, led by Republicans, dismissed a Democratic effort to curb President Trump's authority to use military force against Iran, despite Trump's consideration of further bombings. The resolution, requiring congressional approval for hostilities, failed in a 53-47 vote, highlighting divisions over war powers.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. The Senate on Friday, June 27, 2025, blocked a Democratic resolution sponsored by Kaine that would have forced President Donald Trump to go to Congress for approval of further military action against Iran, dealing a blow to efforts to rein in his war powers. (Eric Lee/The New York Times)
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Republican-led U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran , hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.Senator Tim Kaine , chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force."If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before the vote.Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend U.S. strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.'OBLITERATED'Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid.Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary."We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote.Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.Under U.S. law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, whereSpeaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, with some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the president's veto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
7 minutes ago
- India Gazette
MP: Case filed against Cong chief Jitendra Patwari for allegedly bribing villager to allege being fed human excreta
Ashoknagar (Madhya Pradesh) [India], June 28 (ANI): Madhya Pradesh Police, on Saturday, filed a case against state Congress President Jitendra Patwari for bribing a villager to make false allegations about being fed human excreta, Superintendent of Police (SP) Vineet Kumar Jain said. According to police, Jitendra (Jitu) Patwari asked villager Gajraj Lodhi to make allegations against Mungaoli village Sarpanch. SP Vineet Kumar Jain told ANI, 'Yesterday, Gajraj Lodhi met the collector of Ashoknagar personally and handed him an affidavit stating that some Congress leaders took him to Orchha, where he met Jitu Patwari. Jitu Patwari told him to allege about being fed faeces (by Mungaoli village sarpanch) and bribed him for it.' He added that the police found the allegations to be false and registered a case against the Congress leader. 'Later, he said that the allegations about this were false, and he made this allegation on Jitu Patwari's demand... Based on this, a case has been filed against Jitu Patwari and his aids under various sections of BNS,' SP Kumar said. Earlier on Wednesday, Patwari shared an X post, where he made the above allegations and said that the accused were supporters of BJP leader Brijendra Yadav. Addressing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi he wrote, 'Prime Minister Ji, @BJP4MP The jungle rule of power is crossing the limits of anarchy! A youth from the Lodhi community had 'human excrement' stuffed in his mouth just because he asked for a 'ration slip'! It is alleged that since the accused are supporters of @BJP4India MLA Brijendra Yadav, that's why @DGP_MP and @CMMadhyaPradesh are not allowing any action to be taken?' Referring to a previous incident of a man urinating on a tribal youth, he questioned law and order in Madhya Pradesh. 'In this same Madhya Pradesh, a shameful incident of urinating on the head of a tribal youth has already taken place! Why does #BJP consider Dalits, backward classes, and tribals as its enemies in Madhya Pradesh? The law and order in Madhya Pradesh have completely collapsed, yet @DrMohanYadav51 remains the Home Minister with arrogance! Meanwhile, the people of Madhya Pradesh now want freedom from this jungle rule,' the X post further read. (ANI)
United News of India
16 minutes ago
- United News of India
Khamenei 'sidelined completely' in Tehran's ceasefire talks with US
Tehran, June 27 (UNI) Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was reportedly completely sidelined during Tehran's talks for ending its war with Israel, with its ceasefire negotiations with the US taking place without any involvement from Khamenei. According to Iran International, the entire decision-making process was handled by Iran's Supreme National Security Council and President Masoud Pezeshkian, who moved swiftly to respond to a ceasefire proposal from US President Donald Trump. While establishing contact with Khamenei was considered, no such opportunity presented itself, and due to the Supreme National Council wanting to quickly negotiate a truce, Khamenei was completely left in the dark about Tehran's ceasefire talks with Tel Aviv and Washington. In recent days, Khamenei's communication capabilities have been also been severely limited due to security concerns, particularly owing to fears of an attack on his location. The Iranian supreme leader is said to be hiding in a secret bunker somewhere in Lavizan, northeast of Tehran with all his close family members. Due to communications disruptions and security concerns, the 86-year-old reportedly transferred all key decision-making powers to the to the supreme council of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shortly after the start of the attacks by Israel. While Iran has not revealed his location, both Israel and the US have said that they could kill Khamenei if they wanted with Trump even saying that Washington knows where he is. Calling him an 'easy target', Trump had sternly warned that 'American patience is wearing thin', and Iran must quickly reach a deal.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
