Senate fails to advance Iran War Powers resolution

CNN

3 hours ago

The Senate on Friday rejected a Democrat-pushed resolution that aimed to rein in the president's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, originally introduced the resolution last week, under the War Powers Act of 1973, before President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The resolution would have required congressional approval for any further strikes on Iran that are not in self-defense or due to imminent danger.
'I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person,' Kaine said on the Senate floor on Friday. 'War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person.'
Lawmakers voted against advancing it to the Senate floor, 53-47.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to advance the resolution. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted against it.
Friday's vote was a notable departure from a similar war powers vote in 2020 related to Iran, in which eight Republicans voted with Democrats, seven of whom are still in the Senate.
GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of those who had voted for the 2020 resolution and is now up for reelection, wrote on X Thursday, 'I'll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act.'
Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who also joined Democrats to back the resolution five years ago, said in his own post, 'Based on President Trump's stated goal of no further military action against Iran and conversations with senior national security officials regarding the Administration's future intentions, I do not believe an Iran war powers resolution is necessary at this time.'
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine added, 'I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.'
Paul declared he would back the resolution in a speech on the floor, in which he insisted Congress assert its constitutional authority.
'If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted,' he said. 'Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce US troops into wars is an affront to the constitution, and the American people.'
Paul also warned that no one can predict how the Israel-Iran conflict could progress. 'History is replete with examples of leaders who in their hubris thought they could shape the fate of nations, but were subsequently proven wrong as events ended up controlling them,' he said.
'Pandora's box has been opened,' added Paul. 'Congress must now focus its effort on de-escalation and preventing the call for regime change – the consequences of which, if applied to Iran, risk the total destabilization of the Middle East.'
The House could bring up its own Democrat-led war powers resolution after July 4. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has faced heavy backlash from the administration for criticizing the strikes on Iran, had also introduced a war powers resolution as well, but ultimately decided not to bring it up amid a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has sharply criticized members for demanding Trump receive congressional approval for strikes on Iran, adding that he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional.
'Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article Two powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right,' Johnson told reporters on Tuesday.
He also called allegations that the strikes on Iran were unconstitutional, or even impeachable, 'outrageous.'
'It would be comical if it were not so serious and stupid. Let me be clear and be as clear as possible: the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within President Trump's Article Two powers as commander in chief. It shouldn't even be in dispute,' he said.
Other Republicans also sharply criticized the resolution, with former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell warning in a statement that it was 'divorced from both strategic and constitutional reality.'
'Was degrading Iran's nuclear capability without expanding the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East a mistake? Was it wrong to seize the rare opportunity made possible by Israel's operations over the last 20 months? Did it not demonstrably advance U.S. interests in the region? Or are isolationists correct in suggesting that such interests do not exist?' he asked.