Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes.
The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening.
In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes."
Why It Matters
The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday.
Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies.
The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran.
President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington.
President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
What To Know
The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran.
Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility.
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion.
At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action.
In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements.
During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority.
This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future."
But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party.
For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel."
What People Are Saying
Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'"
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war."
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person."
What Happens Next
Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans advance Trump's tax and spending cuts bill after dramatic late-night vote
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans voting in a dramatic late Saturday session narrowly cleared a key procedural step as they race to advance President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered deportation funds by his July Fourth deadline. The tally, 51-49, came after a tumultuous night with Vice President JD Vance at the Capitol to break a potential tie. Tense scenes played out in the chamber as voting came to a standstill, dragging for more than three hours as holdout senators huddled for negotiations, and took private meetings off the floor. In the end, two Republicans opposed the motion to proceed, joining all Democrats. There's still a long weekend of work to come. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Ahead of roll call, the White House released a statement of administrative policy saying it 'strongly supports passage' of the bill. Trump himself was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with GOP senators posting about the visit on social media. But by nightfall, Trump was lashing out against holdouts, threatening to campaign against one Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had announced he could not support the bill because of grave Medicaid cuts that he worried would leave many without health care in his state. Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against. The president was working the phones from the Oval Office late Saturday night, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Pressure was mounting from all sides — billionaire Elon Musk criticized the package as 'utterly insane and destructive.' The 940-page "One Big Beautiful Bill Act was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through all-night debate and amendments in the days ahead. If the Senate is able to pass it, the bill would go back to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would increase by 11.8 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill 'in the dead of night' and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. He immediately forced a full reading of the text late Saturday in the Senate, which would take hours. Make-or-break moment for GOP The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up and has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments, which a top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said would be a 'death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries, are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Tillis said he spoke with Trump late Friday explaining his concerns. Paul of Kentucky had been opposed to the bill's provision to raise the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. And GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who initially voted no, switched hours later after private talks to agree to advance the bill. As the roll call teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted to proceed. A short time later, Thune drew conservative holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office, with Vance and Johnson also joining. Talks dragged on. Then swiftly, Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group "had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.' After setbacks, Republicans revise some proposals The release of the bill's draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the measure to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. The CBO had said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The budget office has started releasing initial assessments of the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. SALT dispute shakes things up The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled. The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a handful of Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap, but limits it for five years. Many Republican senators say that is still too generous, but House Republicans are not fully satisfied either. House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington. ___ Associated Press writers Ali Swenson, Fatima Hussein, Michelle L. Price and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
