
Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.'
Advertisement
He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran.
'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said.
Advertisement
A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran.
The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington.
'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'Instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, 'Oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority.''
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.'
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.'
Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress.
'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said.
Advertisement
But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers.
'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.'
Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval.
In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace.
Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack.
'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.'
Advertisement
The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation.
Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.'
'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said.
Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.'
'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.'
A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes.
'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.'
But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump.
Advertisement
'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said.
At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night.
'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.'
Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.
Hashtags

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


USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.


New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash
The LA County Sheriff's Department has deleted a social media post calling the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities 'tragic' after being dragged online. 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' the department wrote on X Sunday in a now-deleted post. 'While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners.' 4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deleted the X post following backlash. @LASDHQ/X The post sparked immediate outrage and was allegedly updated to exclude the part sending condolences to 'the victims and families' and calling the US military airstrikes 'tragic.' Moments later, it was ultimately deleted from the platform, according to independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok. However, before being yanked for good, the post garnered a massive outcry of responses, bashing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the insensitive and inaccurate post. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked. There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites,' replied the American advocacy group Stop Antisemitism. 'Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff's HQ.' 'It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages when our brave men and women are risking their lives to protect our country,' wrote another outraged X user. 4 Satellite image shows a close-up view of destroyed buildings at Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, after it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS 'That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated to find out what drove them to write these messages.' 'This is the CRAZIEST reaction to President Trump delivering MONUMENTAL devastation to Iran's nuclear sites,' another person wrote. While another agreed with the outrage, adding, 'Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace. Shame on him!' 4 A man who asked not to be identified holds an Iranian and an upside-down American flag while people gather for a 'No War with Iran x Israel and Immigrants' on June 7, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images 4 LA County Sheriff's deputies arrest a protester after unlawful assembly was declared following a 'No Kings' national rally against the Trump administration in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In response to the backlash over the post, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office released a statement 'apologizing' for the 'offensive and inappropriate' post late Sunday. 'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department's social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the statement reads. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department. As a law enforcement agency, we do not comment on foreign policy or military matters. Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities.' The department acknowledged that it had 'updated' the social media post and has 'launched an internal review to determine how it was created and published.' 'Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols and ensure that any future communications align with our Department's standards of professionalism, respect, and accountability,' the department added. 'We appreciate the continued trust of our community and will work diligently to reaffirm that trust every day.' The Post has reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for comment.


UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Israeli warplanes attack Iran's air defense capabilities
Iranian ballistic missiles over the skies near Jerusalem in two salvos of missiles shot from Iran into Israel following the huge American attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday, June 22, 2025. Photo by Jim Hollander/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- Israel continued to attack Iran on Monday, targeting its air defense capabilities, as the Islamic regime vows retaliation after the United States bombed three of its nuclear facilities over the weekend. The Israel Defense Forces was posting updates of its assaults on Iran to X on Monday morning, saying warplanes were attacking military infrastructure in Kermanshah. It said more than 15 fighter jets destroyed several launch and storage sites for surface-to-surface missiles targeting Israel. It also said the air force struck six airports in western, eastern and central Iran. Runways, underground hangars, a refueling aircraft and F-14, F-5 and AH-1 aircraft were destroyed, it said. "The destroyed aircraft were intended for use against Israeli Air Force planes and to thwart their operations within Iranian territory," the IDF said. It explained the assaults were "part of efforts to deepen aerial superiority over Iranian airspace." The updates came as the IDF said it had detected several missiles launched from Iran targeting Israel. The launches triggered sirens in several northern Israeli regions, and the IDF said it was working to intercept the projectiles "and attack wherever necessary to eliminate the threat." The strikes come as Iran has vowed to retaliate against Israel and the United States after U.S. warplanes bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night, increasing fears of an expanding war and of Washington becoming involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. According to Iranian state-owned news organization Press TV, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps condemned the U.S. attack as illegal under international law while threatening to attack U.S. overseas military institutions. "As we have repeatedly emphasized, the number, dispersion and scale of U.S. military bases in the region are not a source of strength but a major vulnerability," the IRGC said in the statement. The U.S. attack "has granted the Islamic Republic of Iran, within the framework of its legitimate right to self-defense, the option to respond in ways that go beyond the delusional calculations of the aggressor alliance." "Those who violated this land must now await responses that will bring deep regret," it said.