Latest news with #warPowers
CBS News
10 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Senate votes down measure restricting Trump from further military action in Iran
Will bipartisan war powers resolution hold up as it moves through Congress? Washington — The Senate on Friday voted down an effort to block President Trump from using further military force against Iran, as Democratic anger festers over the lack of details about the recent strikes on the country's nuclear facilities. The measure failed in a 47-53 vote, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voting with most Democrats in favor of the resolution, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voting with most Republicans against it. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced the war powers resolution days before the U.S. bombed three locations central to Iran's nuclear program, seeking to force the president to get congressional authorization before entering the conflict between Israel and Iran. "The events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decisions of any one person," Kaine said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. Since the measure was introduced, Mr. Trump announced a ceasefire between the adversaries and declared that Iran's nuclear sites were "obliterated" during the 12-day war. On Friday, Mr. Trump said he would "without question" consider bombing Iran again if Tehran was enriching uranium to a level that concerned the U.S. But anger from Democrats, including those who have said that Iran should never be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, has simmered as they say they have been left in the dark about U.S. military actions. It's led some Democrats to question whether the Trump administration is misleading the public about the strikes, especially after an initial classified assessment found that they set back Tehran's nuclear program by a matter of months. Mr. Trump, meanwhile, has said the nuclear program was set back "basically decades." Top intelligence officials said Wednesday that new intelligence showed the nuclear program had been "severely damaged" and its facilities "destroyed." It would take the Iranians "years" to rebuild the facilities, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called it "an historically successful attack" in a contentious press briefing Thursday. Classified briefings for the Senate and House were originally scheduled for Tuesday, the same day the initial assessment was leaked. Officials briefed senators on Thursday afternoon and House members on Friday. A White House official said Tuesday the Senate briefing was postponed because of "evolved circumstances as a result of recent positive developments in the Middle East." After the briefings, some Democrats cast doubt on the administration's characterization of the strikes and questioned assertions regarding how much Iran's nuclear program has been hindered. "I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program," Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters. "The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. It is certain that there is still significant capability, significant equipment that remain." Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, said the information disclosed in the briefing was "massively different than what has been told to Congress over the last year, up until a month ago, about both Iranian capabilities and Iranian intent." Crow said he was "not convinced of that whatsoever" when asked whether Iranian nuclear facilities had been obliterated. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, has railed against a lack of transparency and said earlier this week the administration had not presented Congress with any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat requiring immediate military action. But Jeffries did not go as far as supporting a resolution to impeach Mr. Trump over the bombings. He and more than 120 Democrats voted with all Republicans to kill the measure, which was introduced by Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas, on Tuesday. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also questioned the timing of the strikes. "It's pretty clear that there was no imminent threat to the United States," Himes said. "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." Kaine's resolution was one of a handful of similar efforts seeking to curtail further U.S. involvement in Iran, though it's unclear whether any will be successful in a Congress controlled narrowly by Republicans. Some Republicans who were initially supportive of the resolutions, like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, appear to be backing away from forcing a vote as long as the ceasefire holds and the U.S. does not conduct any further bombings. And House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, called the efforts irrelevant because Iran and Israel agreed to stop the fighting. "It's kind of a moot point now, isn't it?" Johnson said Monday. "It seems rather silly at this point and I hope they'll acknowledge it as such and put it to bed because it has zero chance of passing anyway." Senate Majority Leader John Thune told The Wall Street Journal this week he believes Mr. Trump acted "perfectly within his authority" by striking Iran. "I don't think there's any question the president has the authority legally and constitutionally to do what he did," the South Dakota Republican said. "There are always questions around these things, but past presidents and both political parties have similarly acted in circumstances where there've been airstrikes at various places around the world where our national security interests dictated it." The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and most major military conflicts in recent history have been launched under an authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress. But presidents have periodically acted without explicit permission from lawmakers, including during President Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and President Barack Obama's 2011 airstrikes on Libya, the Congressional Research Service notes. In announcing his support for Kaine's resolution, Paul said Congress was abdicating its constitutional responsibility by allowing a president to act unilaterally and warned that last week's strikes could have unintended consequences. "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, or, in fact, whether the Iranians may well conclude to double down on their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon," Paul said. Those opposed to the resolution argued that Mr. Trump acted within his constitutional authority and that the measure would constrain the president's ability to respond quickly to a threat. In an interview last week with CBS News' Major Garrett, Kaine acknowledged that his resolution could fail but said he wanted his colleagues to be on the record about U.S. involvement in another war. "Everyone in the Senate should agree that this is a matter of such gravity and importance that we shouldn't allow war to begin without Congress having a debate in full view of the American public and members of the Senate and House having to go on the record about it," he said. , and contributed to this report.
The Guardian
13 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.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate rejects effort to restrain Trump on Iran as GOP backs his strikes on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. ___ Associated Press reporter Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Senate shuts down Kaine's attempt to check Trump's war powers
A Senate Democrat's push to put a check on President Donald Trump's powers and reaffirm the Senate's war authority was shut down by lawmakers in the upper chamber Thursday. Sen. Tim Kaine's war powers resolution, which would have required Congress to debate and vote on whether the president could declare war, or strike Iran, was struck down in the Senate on a largely party-line vote, save for Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a staunch advocate of Israel who supported Trump's strike on the Islamic Republic, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been vocal in his thoughts about congressional war powers in recent days. Earlier in the week, the Virginia Democrat vowed to move ahead with the resolution despite a fragile ceasefire brokered between Israel and Iran following weekend strikes on the Islamic Republic's key nuclear facilities that were not given the green-light by Congress. Kaine argued that the ceasefire gave his resolution more credence and breathing room to properly debate the role that Congress plays when it comes to authorizing both war and attacks abroad. He said ahead of the vote on the Senate floor that he came to Washington to ensure that the country does not again get into another "unnecessary" war, and invoked the rush to approve war powers for then-President George W. Bush over two decades ago to engage with Iraq. "I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to consign to the decisions of any one person," Kaine said. Indeed, his resolution became a focal point for a debate that has raged on Capitol Hill since Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran: whether the strikes like those carried out during Operation Midnight Hammer constituted an act of war that required congressional approval, or if Trump's decision was under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief. Senate Republicans have widely argued that Trump was well within his purview, while most Senate Democrats raised constitutional concerns about the president's ability to carry out a strike without lawmakers weighing in. Experts have argued, too, that Trump was within his executive authority to strike Iran. The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. And nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles. But the most impact lawmakers could have is through the power of the purse, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, who plays a large role in controlling the purse strings as the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, had a sharp message against Kaine's resolution. McConnell used instances where Democratic presidents over the last three decades have used their authority for limited engagements in Kosovo, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and questioned why "isolationists" would consider the strike on Iran to kneecap its nuclear program a mistake. "I have not heard the frequent flyers on War Powers resolutions reckon seriously with these questions," he said. "Until they do, efforts like this will remain divorced from both strategic and constitutional reality."
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Editorial: Trump's entry into Iran war left Congress MIA
Americans can be forgiven for feeling a bit exhausted by the head-spinning pace of events in the Middle East. From calls for negotiation to sudden bombings and missile strikes, to a failed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar then a promise of a ceasefire quickly followed by a claim that both Israel and Iran violated that ceasefire, the last few action-packed days have felt more like months. But as questions continue to be asked about what just transpired — and, most importantly, about the prospects of Iran developing a nuclear weapon — there's also a more basic inquiry facing the United States: Did President Donald Trump violate the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war? The founders were famously leery of U.S. involvement in foreign wars and that's why Congress, and not the president, is solely vested with that power. And while one can certainly recognize that the nature of warfare has changed over the last 237 years, Trump's decision to launch an offensive war on Iran was not sudden. There was an undeniable opportunity for consultation and to invoke the War Powers Resolution, the 1973 law that requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. But is that obligation met simply by calling up a handful of Republican leaders after the fact? The point is to seek congressional approval, not to merely have them on speed dial. Much of the build-up to U.S. direct involvement focused on Trump's efforts to mediate a more peaceful resolution but it was also clear that the conflict generated much division within Republican Party ranks and particularly in the MAGA wing. A promise not to duplicate the 'forever wars' launched by Trump's White House predecessors has been one of the more unifying characteristics of his base — until, of course, it wasn't. Yet how easy it is to judge the U.S. invasion of Iraq two decades ago, for example, with the benefit of hindsight and unhappy experience. Did Trump just meet the moment? Perhaps. But even if he did, do we want future presidents to launch unconstitutional wars at the mere drop of a hat or push of a button? You can bet Democrats will raise this issue. Indeed, they already have. But when it comes from high-profile Trump critics like U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia or U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, it sounds like the usual partisan politics. Just as telling is what happened when some back-bench Republicans raised some concerns as well. After U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning GOP member from Kentucky and frequent Trump critic, introduced a bipartisan resolution last week calling for an explicit declaration of war, Trump labeled him a 'lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive' politician on his social media account and called for him to be defeated in the 2026 Republican primary. That's why it's now up to GOP leaders to stand up and be counted. Admittedly, that's a challenge politically, particularly if the bombing of Iran appears to have proven effective. One can assume Trump will react badly to any dissent including a suggestion that he seek legislative approval for just about anything. Yet the War Powers Resolution also limits how long the military can be deployed — specifically to 60 days unless Congress authorizes war or extends the length for military intervention. Will the Israel-Iran war be resolved in two months? If there's no further need for U.S. military involvement, the president will have sidestepped the constitutional question. And while it's impossible to know for sure how talks will proceed (or even whether ceasefires will be respected), history strongly suggests further U.S. military involvement. Once again, it's in the interests of all to address the matter, for Congress to speak up and perhaps even engage in floor debates about the wisdom of direct military intervention. There are moments when presidents don't have the luxury to seek congressional approval — when there's an ICBM hurtling toward a U.S. population center, for example — but this isn't one of those occasions. And just because presidents from both parties have failed to meet this obligation doesn't make it right. It only makes it all the more urgent for constitutional authority to be respected and for Congress to claim its rightful role. _____
