Latest news with #RandPaul
Japan Times
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
U.S. Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing. The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats. Sen. Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents. Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. "If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before the vote. Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend U.S. strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticized Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites. Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid. Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities. Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary. "We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production. Under U.S. law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month. But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort. During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, with some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the president's veto.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US Senate votes down resolution to restrict Trump from escalating Iran war
Senate Democrats failed on Friday to get a war-powers resolution passed to limit Donald Trump's ability to single-handedly escalate the war with Iran. The resolution, 'to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran', was voted down 53-47. The vote on the resolution, introduced by the Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, split along mainly partisan lines. One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted for it; one Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against it. 'Congress declares war,' Kaine said in a speech on the Senate floor. He stressed that the framers of the US constitution in 1787 were so wary of giving the power to start wars to one person that they did not even entrust it to George Washington, the first commander-in-chief. 'They decided that war was too big a decision for one person,' Kaine said. 'And so they wrote a constitution that said the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress.' The measure would have compelled Trump to seek authorization from Congress before taking any further military action. Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on 22 June. This directly followed Israel launching attacks on Iran, and Iran retaliating. Trump said that the US bombardment 'totally obliterated' key nuclear enrichment facilities and deemed the mission a success, although some initial reports said the damage was minimal. Iran condemned the attacks. Trump claimed on Friday that Iran had halted its nuclear ambitions after the bombings. But, he said, he would 'absolutely' continue to attack the country's nuclear sites if he believed it was once again enriching uranium. 'Time will tell,' Trump said at the White House. 'But I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.'
CNN
6 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Senate fails to advance Iran War Powers resolution
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.
CNN
6 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Senate fails to advance Iran War Powers resolution
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.
Wall Street Journal
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Senate Effort to Restrain Trump's War Powers in Iran Fails
WASHINGTON—An effort by Senate Democrats to prevent President Trump from taking further military action in Iran without congressional approval was blocked by Republicans, who argued the commander in chief was within his rights to launch strikes on nuclear sites a week ago. The measure failed with 47 in favor and 53 opposed on Friday, largely along party lines, shy of the required simple majority in the GOP-controlled chamber. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania sided with Republicans in voting against the measure, while GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky sided with the Democrats in backing it.
