US Democrats to introduce resolution to check Trump's use of military force on Iran
Three Democratic lawmakers from the US House of Representatives introduced a war powers resolution on Monday to check President Donald Trump's use of military force against Iran after US strikes on Tehran's nuclear sites over the weekend.
Trump's Republican Party holds a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and it is unlikely any resolution restricting Trump's actions could pass both chambers.
Iran targeted a US base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation. The Israel-Iran war, which began on June 13 when Israel attacked its regional rival, further raised tensions in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023.
The joint statement issued late on Monday by Democratic US Representatives Jim Himes, Gregory Meeks and Adam Smith came hours after Trump claimed on social media Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire.
'President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval,' the lawmakers said, adding that Trump ordered the strikes 'without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization.'
Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers had called on Congress to rein in Trump's use of military force in Iran and prevent US involvement in the conflict. Many Democratic US lawmakers said Trump's actions were unconstitutional and that it was Congress that had the power to declare war on foreign countries.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said earlier on Monday it was not the time to consider a war powers resolution.
Trump's allies insist he had the authority to take unilateral action against Iran to eliminate what they called a potential nuclear threat posed by Tehran.
The Democratic lawmakers said Trump's actions appeared broader.
'The president has posted on social media about regime change, undermining any claim that this was a narrowly tailored operation to eliminate a nuclear threat,' the Democratic lawmakers said, referring to a Sunday post in which Trump raised the prospect of overthrowing Iran's government.
'No thoughtful deliberation nor careful planning occurred here - and serious actions demand serious debate, not presidential impulse,' they added.
Trump announced on Monday a complete ceasefire between Israel and Iran, potentially ending the 12-day war that saw millions flee Tehran and prompted fears of further escalation in the war-torn region.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East widely believed to have nuclear weapons and says its war against Iran aims to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is peaceful, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while Israel is not.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
39 minutes ago
- Arab News
US puts up reward for American detained in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: The United States on Tuesday offered a $5 million reward for information to find a US citizen who it said was abducted in Afghanistan in 2022. Mahmood Shah Habibi, who worked for a telecommunications firm and holds dual nationality, was abducted along with his driver in Kabul and detained by the Taliban government's intelligence service, the State Department said. 'Since that time, the so-called Taliban government has not yet provided any information about Mr. Habibi's whereabouts or condition,' State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters. In January, the Taliban government released two other Americans, Ryan Corbett and William McKenty, for an Afghan detained in the United States in an exchange mediated by Qatar. Dozens of foreign nationals have been arrested since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021 following the withdrawal of the US military.
Arab News
41 minutes ago
- Arab News
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON: Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.' Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause— 'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'— provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Immigrant rights groups urge sheriffs to prioritize public safety over immigration enforcement
A coalition of immigrant rights, faith, and pro-democracy organizations presented a letter with 12,000 signatures to the National Sheriffs' Association Conference in Florida, urging them to protect public safety rather than work with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The letter urges sheriffs' agencies to refrain from immigration-related issues and stay away from what the organizers consider the dangers of President Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric and harmful immigration agenda. About 30 people attended a rally outside Broward County Convention Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where the annual sheriffs' association conference was taking place. 'When sheriffs take on the responsibility of federal immigration authorities, it undermines your core mission, stretches already limited resources, and most importantly, causes real harm,' the letter said. Thomas Kennedy, a spokesman for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, said having law enforcement involved in immigration issues could lead to people being afraid to call for help. 'It's a bad deal for our city in general in terms of it being a welcoming place. It's a bad deal for civil rights. It's a bad deal for taxpayers. It's a bad deal for public safety because these police officers are distracted from their tasks,' Kennedy said. The sheriffs' association did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the letter.
