Rounds says Trump notified congressional leaders of strikes ‘well within' 48-hour window
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said on Sunday that President Trump notified Congress of the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites 'well within' the 48-hour window defined by the War Powers Resolution.
In an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' Rounds pushed back against critics who say the president acted outside his constitutional authority by ordering strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow.
'The Constitution clearly gives the President the authority to act on our nation's behalf,' Rounds said.
'Second of all, the War Powers Act, which is in place, was responded to appropriately. They were supposed to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours. They were well within that range of notifying them of the actions [that] were taken, so the law has been complied with. The Constitution is being complied with,' Rounds continued.
Rounds said the Constitution was acting just as 'the founders wanted it to work.'
'The president is the chief. The commander in chief has the responsibility. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in the way they wrote the Constitution. They understood that Congress takes a long time to act. They also understood that in times in military conflict or in times of great danger or emergencies that the president needed the authority to be able to respond quickly and effectively and decisively,' he said.
'This president did just exactly that. It is working the way the founders wanted it to work in the first place,' Rounds added.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the strikes after 'the planes were safely out' of Iranian airspace, adding that the administration's actions 'complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act.'
Some reports have indicated that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) were briefed about the strikes. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has criticized the administration for not seeking congressional approval and has called for Congress to be 'fully and immediately briefed' on the strikes in a classified setting, in a statement shortly after the attacks.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Thousands Gather in Tehran to Mourn Dead from Israel Strikes
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Iran's capital on Saturday for a state funeral honoring about 60 Iranians killed in Israeli strikes over the past few weeks, including top military commanders and nuclear scientists. Why It Matters In what President Donald Trump has called the "12 Day War," in mid-June Israel initially struck Tehran and several other cities in "Operation Rising Lion," a campaign it said was meant to preempt a planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities. Iran, which has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, retaliated, though Israeli defense systems—bolstered by U.S. military technology—intercepted nearly all incoming missile fire, according to Israeli officials, although Iran did strike a hospital southern Israel last week. More than 600 Iranians were reported killed by Israeli strikes, and 28 Israelis killed by Iranian strikes, with thousands wounded it both countries. Last weekend, the U.S. joined Israel in its war against Iran by bombing three nuclear sites, Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, in the largest B-2 operation in U.S. history. There were no reported casualties. Israeli strikes killed civilians, nuclear scientists, and high-level military officials, such as Hossein Salami who served as the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC's Air Force. Thousands of Iranians attend the funeral ceremony for approximately 60 people killed in Israeli strikes on Iran, including high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, and civilians, during a state funeral service in Enqelab Square on June... Thousands of Iranians attend the funeral ceremony for approximately 60 people killed in Israeli strikes on Iran, including high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, and civilians, during a state funeral service in Enqelab Square on June 28, 2025 in Tehran, Iran. MoreWhat To Know On Saturday, thousands of mourners dressed in black flooded the streets of Tehran in a state funeral procession for about 60 of those killed in the strikes, with IRGC-affiliated outlet Tasnim News Agency describing them as "martyred." Caskets of the dead were covered in Iranian flags. The outlet reported the procession, in which participants were seen carrying flags and banners, commenced near the University of Tehran in Enghelab (Revolution) Square and ended at the Azadi (Freedom) Square. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian marched in the procession and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was seen giving his prayers, while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not spotted. Mourners attend the funeral ceremony of the Iranian armed forces generals, nuclear scientists and their family members who were killed in Israeli strikes, at Islamic Revolution Square (Enghelab Square) square, in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June... Mourners attend the funeral ceremony of the Iranian armed forces generals, nuclear scientists and their family members who were killed in Israeli strikes, at Islamic Revolution Square (Enghelab Square) square, in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 28, 2025. More AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency shared photos of various models of Iran's ballistic missiles showcased during the funeral procession. Pictures also showed Israeli and American flags being walked over and some burned, while the Associated Press reported that some people chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Salami, who was honored on Saturday, had leveled a threat to the United States in May, saying Iran would "open the gates of hell" if attacked by Israel or America. He was a defiant voice against Israel and had praised Hezbollah's operations in its war against the country in 2024. Bagheri had warned for years that his forces were ready for military action against the country. Others commemorated included women, children and nuclear physicists involved in Iran's nuclear energy and enrichment activities. The state funeral comes days after a fragile ceasefire was agreed upon between Israel and Iran. People hold flags near posters displaying assassinated military leaders, including Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC Hossein Salami (C), as thousands of Iranians attend the funeral ceremony for approximately 60 people killed in Israeli strikes on Iran,... People hold flags near posters displaying assassinated military leaders, including Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC Hossein Salami (C), as thousands of Iranians attend the funeral ceremony for approximately 60 people killed in Israeli strikes on Iran, including high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, and civilians, during a state funeral service in Enqelab Square on June 28, 2025 in Tehran, Iran. MoreWhat People Are Saying Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote in a Persian in an X, formerly Twitter, post on Saturday: "From the bottom of my heart, I thank you dear people; With love, you bid farewell to the martyrs of our homeland, and our voice of unity reached the ears of the world. We have learned from Husayn ibn Ali (peace be upon him) not to submit to humiliation and not to bow our heads before oppression. Serving such a noble nation is the honor of my life. Forever Iran " Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote in Persian on X on Saturday: "The Iranian nation should know that the reason for the opposition to America is that they want Iran to surrender, and this is a great insult to the Iranian nation by the Americans, and such a thing will never happen." President Donald Trump told reporters on Friday that the U.S. would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran against if it is found enriching uranium to "concerning" levels. What Happens Next The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which went into effect on June 24, remains fragile. Trump said the U.S. and Iran are due to hold new talks about the country's nuclear capabilities. "We're going to talk to them next week, with Iran," Trump said at the NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday. "We may sign an agreement. I don't know." On Saturday, Araghchi posted on X, "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers."
2 hours ago
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before the Senate
WASHINGTON -- At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Fund to help offset reduced Medicaid dollars. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate the various production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments, restrictions on the development of artificial intelligence and blocks on transgender surgeries. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. The bill would deter states from regulating artificial intelligence by linking certain federal AI infrastructure money to maintaining a freeze. Seventeen Republican governors asked GOP leaders to drop the provision. Also, the interior secretary would be directed to sell certain Bureau of Land Management acreage to provide for housing. The sale of public lands would cover at least 600,000 acres and up to 1.2 million acres, according to a projection from the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group. Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the tax provisions cost $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
