Dems aim to curb Trump's use of military in Iran but GOP expects to kill bills
WASHINGTON – The Senate could vote as early as June 26 to curb President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran, despite the fragile cease-fire and the expectation of Republican congressional leaders that the proposals will be defeated.
The measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, is one of at least three pending in Congress amid a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country.
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:
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.'
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.
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."
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."
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.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Dems try to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
20 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump loses latest bid to get Central Park Five defamation lawsuit tossed
A federal judge on Friday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to throw out a defamation lawsuit against him filed by plaintiffs formerly known as the Central Park Five. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone said that Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect defendants from lawsuits targeting protected speech, does not apply in federal court, rejecting Trump's motion to dismiss the case. "The only issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs' claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") can survive given Pennsylvania's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, otherwise known as its Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Statute," Beetlestone wrote in a 13-page filing. "Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP Statute (a state law) does not apply here, in federal court," she wrote in the filing, adding: "Accordingly, Defendant's Motion shall be denied." Five men who as teenagers were wrongfully convicted in the so-called Central Park Five jogger rape case sued Trump in October, accusing the then-Republican presidential nominee of defaming them. They cited a number of statements Trump made during his Sept. 10 presidential debate against former Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing him of falsely stating that the men killed somebody and pled guilty to the crime. "These statements are demonstrably false," they wrote in their filing against Trump. The five men — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray and Korey Wise — spent years in prison for the rape and assault of a white female jogger, a crime they were later exonerated of and did not commit. Trump has tried to dismiss the defamation lawsuit against him, but has not been successful. Judge Beetlestone in April also threw out Trump's motion to dismiss the case against him in a different filing.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next.
The Social Security trustees expect to deplete the trust fund in just a few years without changes. Cuts to the program will be even steeper than expected a year ago. There are several factors driving the increased deficit. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security is the backbone of many Americans' retirement plans. More than one-third of adults said the government program would be a major source of income in retirement in the most recent edition of an annual Gallup poll. That number has climbed higher over the last 20 years since Gallup started the survey. Meanwhile, six in 10 current retirees say their monthly check is a big piece of their budget. But with more and more Americans relying on Social Security, the future of the program has never looked more uncertain. Not only are seniors staring down the barrel of benefit cuts in just a few years, but the problem is only getting worse. Here's what seniors can expect and how they can plan for the future of Social Security. Retirees could see a significant benefit cut in just eight years if Congress doesn't act to change Social Security and improve its longevity. That's when the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the program will deplete the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund. The Social Security trust fund was established to hold excess tax revenue from wages to pay out to retirees when they start collecting benefits later. In the meantime, the Social Security Administration invests those funds in government bonds to earn a steady return on the principal. Over time, the balance grew as the working population grew faster than the retirement population. But as Baby Boomers started retiring, life expectancies increased, and younger generations had fewer children, the demographic shifts started putting pressure on the trust fund balance. As a result, Social Security has been running a deficit in most years since 2018. And that deficit is getting worse each year as the retired population grows faster than the working population. Every year, the trustees analyze the current state of Social Security and forecast the future of the program. Changes in the workforce, life expectancies, or Social Security policies can impact those estimates. Unfortunately for seniors, the projections got even worse this year. While the 2024 Trustees Report expected retirees to face a 21% overall reduction in benefits starting in 2033, that number climbed to 23% in the latest edition. Here's why seniors could be facing bigger benefits cuts and what they can do about it. It's not just the growing retiree population that's negatively impacting the health of Social Security. After all, almost everyone collecting Social Security today paid into the system for years before retiring. One notable shift negatively impacting Social Security is the growing income inequality in America. Only 82% of earnings were subject to Social Security tax in 2022. That compares to the 90% benchmark Congress targeted in its 1983 Social Security reforms. But even if we returned to that benchmark, it would only make up a portion of the shortfall over the coming years. Another challenge is a slow-growing working population. That's exacerbated by a decline in immigration and further hurt by current immigration policies imposed by the Trump administration. That said, allowing more immigrants to work in the United States (and pay Social Security taxes) would provide only a small amount of additional revenue to Social Security. The biggest change over the past year that's led the trustees to increase their forecast of the Social Security shortfall is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, boosting Social Security benefits for 3.2 million retirees and many more in the future. It was also retroactive to 2024, further depleting the trust fund. So, while those retirees will see a step up in their benefits, many more could see deeper cuts in the future. That's not lost on most seniors, and it's led a surprising number of 62-year-olds to claim their benefits as soon as possible this year instead of waiting to maximize their benefits at age 70. But that might not be the smartest move. Here's why. While the program faces a major threat if Congress fails to act within the next eight years, it's still in most seniors' best interest to wait to claim Social Security on their own terms. There are two key reasons. First, it's highly unlikely Congress will allow Social Security benefits cuts. It may enact laws raising the full retirement age in the future, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the amount of taxable wages, or some combination of all that and more. It could allow benefits to come out of the general fund instead of the trust fund (hopefully with a plan to return Social Security to solvency and reduce the overall government debt). But the clock is ticking for Congress to take action. Second, even if there are benefit cuts in the future, taking Social Security early (when you'd otherwise wait) could result in a much worse scenario for you in the future. The breakeven point for lifetime Social Security income will get pushed out further if you wait and Social Security is forced to cut benefits. But at its core, Social Security is longevity insurance. You'll be much better off in your late 80s if you waited to take Social Security and receive a bigger check than if you claimed as soon as possible. So, while the outlook for Social Security is getting worse, seniors shouldn't be in a rush to get their money while they can. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' Kamala Harris interview at center of Trump lawsuit runs afoul of Cronkite-era CBS guidelines
The infamous '60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris that sparked President Donald Trump's $20 billion 'election interference' lawsuit conflicted with Walter Cronkite-era CBS News guidelines. Cronkite, who was the face of 'CBS Evening News' from 1962 to 1981, was the premier anchorman of America's golden age of network news. In 1976, at the height of Cronkite's reign as 'the most trusted man in America,' CBS News president Richard Salant penned a 76-page document outlining CBS News standards. Advertisement Page 58 is focused on editing and suggests the '60 Minutes' interview at the center of Trump's lawsuit against CBS News would have been frowned upon during the Cronkite era. 'The objective of the editing process is to produce a clear and succinct statement which reflects fairly, honestly and without distortion what was seen and heard by our reporters, cameras and microphones,' Salant wrote in the 1976 document, which has come to the attention of the Trump legal team. Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't 'listening' to the Biden administration. Harris was criticized for the 'word salad' answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on 'Face the Nation.' 3 60 Minutes election special, Bill Whitaker asks Vice President Kamala Harris how she'll fund her economic plan and how she'd get it through Congress. 60 Minutes / CBS Advertisement However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, she gave a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing her answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day. The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same lengthy response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the 'Face the Nation' preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. 3 Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker. 60 Minutes / CBS CBS News, which has denied any wrongdoing and stands by the broadcast and its reporting, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked if the Cronkite-era standards have changed. Advertisement 'If more than one excerpt from a speech or statement is included in a documentary broadcast, the order of their inclusion in the broadcast will be the same as the order of their inclusion in the speech or statement, unless the broadcast specifically indicates otherwise,' Salant wrote in the 1976 CBS News Standards guide. When Cronkite died in 2009 at age 92, his Associated Press obituary said the famed anchor 'valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion' and 'always aimed to be fair and professional in his judgments' regardless of personal views on a topic. 3 Photograph of Walter Cronkite in the year 1950, doing the 6 o'clock news at WTOP-TV in Washington, D.C., taken from the book 'A Reporter's Life'. 12.18.96 Two polls pronounced Cronkite the 'most trusted man in America': a 1972 'trust index' survey in which he finished No. 1, about 15 points higher than leading politicians, and a 1974 survey in which people chose him as the most trusted television newscaster, according to the AP. Advertisement Salant, who was running CBS News when '60 Minutes' was launched, was lauded by The New York Times when he died in 1993. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'He was credited with raising professional standards and expanding news programming at CBS,' the Times wrote. CBS News, along with parent company Paramount, are currently in mediation with hopes of settling with Trump. The mediator recently proposed the network end the president's $20 billion lawsuit with a $20 million settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal. Last month, Trump rejected Paramount's $15 million settlement offer as he sought at least a $25 million payout as well as an apology. According to the Wall Street Journal, Paramount 'isn't prepared' to give one.