Senate rejects effort to restrain President Donald Trump on Iran as GOP backs his strikes on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Donald Trump from further escalating with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress' first attempt to reassert its war powers following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
The resolution, authored by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, 'Sure, without question.'
The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.
Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval.
'Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,' said Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. 'But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.'
Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress' first briefings taking place Thursday.
'The idea is this: We shouldn't send our sons and daughters into war unless there's a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,' Kaine said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn't aimed at restricting the president's ability to defend against a threat, but that 'if it's offense, let's really make sure we're making the right decision.'
In a statement following Friday's vote, Kaine said he was 'disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress' should be a part of a decision to go to war.
Democrats' argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.'
Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday's vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that 'despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.'
'It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations,' said Paul.
Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he's done so at a time when he's often bristling at the nation's checks and balances.
Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.'
But following classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat truly was.
'There was no imminent threat to the United States,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday's classified briefings.
'There's always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,' Himes said.
Despite Democratic skepticism, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump's decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they're working to pass his major legislative package.
Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump's authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving the resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young.
After Thursday's classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was 'confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat' and that, given Trump's stated goal of no further escalation, 'I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.'
'Should the Administration's posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,' Young said in a statement.
Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the ayatollah warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran.
White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
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.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
