Senate rejects effort to restrain Trump on Iran as GOP backs his strikes on 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Americans fear AI permanently displacing workers, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
By Jason Lange and Alexandra Alper WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Americans are deeply concerned over the prospect that advances in artificial intelligence could put swaths of the country out of work permanently, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The six-day poll, which concluded on Monday, showed 71% of respondents said they were concerned that AI will be "putting too many people out of work permanently." The new technology burst into the national conversation in late 2022 when OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot launched and became the fastest-growing application of all time, with tech heavyweights like Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Google owner Alphabet and Microsoft offering their own AI products. While at present there are few signs of mass unemployment - the U.S. jobless rate was just 4.2% in July - artificial intelligence is stirring concerns as it reshapes jobs, industries and day-to-day life. Some 77% of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried the technology could be used to stir up political chaos, a sign of unease over the now-common use of AI technology to create realistic videos of imaginary events. President Donald Trump last month posted on social media an AI-generated video of former Democratic president Barack Obama being arrested, an event that never happened. Americans are also leery about military applications for AI, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. Some 48% of respondents said the government should never use AI to determine the target of a military strike, compared with 24% who said the government should allow that sort of use of the technology. Another 28% said they were not sure. The general enthusiasm for AI shown by many people and companies has fueled further investments, such as Foxconn and SoftBank's planned data center equipment factory in Ohio. It has also upended national security policies as the United States and China vie for AI dominance. More than half of Americans - some 61% - said they were concerned about the amount of electricity needed to power the fast-growing technology. Google said earlier this month it had signed agreements with two U.S. electric utilities to reduce its AI data center power consumption during times of surging demand on the grid, as energy-intensive AI use outpaces power supplies. The new technology has also come under criticism for applications that have let AI bots hold romantic conversations with children, generate false medical information and help people make racist arguments. Two-thirds of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried that people would ditch relationships with other people in favor of AI companions. People were split on whether AI technology will improve education. Some 36% of respondents thought it would help, while 40% disagreed and the rest were not sure. The Reuters/Ipsos survey gathered responses online from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump's interest rate demands put 'fiscal dominance' in market spotlight
By Davide Barbuscia NEW YORK (Reuters) -As U.S. debt swells and the White House leans on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, investors are weighing the risk of "fiscal dominance," a scenario where keeping government financing cheap eclipses the fight against inflation. A budget bill passed last month by the Republican-controlled Congress is set to pile trillions onto the swelling U.S. debt load - raising the cost of servicing that debt. U.S. President Donald Trump has meanwhile made explicit calls for the Fed to cut rates, in part to lower the U.S. government's interest costs. The White House's pressure campaign has raised concerns that the administration wants the Fed to return to a bygone era when it kept rates low in order to allow for lower-cost borrowing. "(Fiscal dominance) is a concern ... There are risks on the horizon, both from the perspective of increasing debt loads and the probability for higher structural inflation, or at minimum, more volatility of inflation," said Nate Thooft, chief investment officer for equity and multi-asset solutions at Manulife Investment Management. "The reason why the Trump administration and politicians in general ... would like to see lower rates, is because it actually requires lower rates to be able to afford the debt levels that we have outstanding," he said. The U.S. experienced fiscal dominance during and shortly after World War Two, when the Fed was required to keep interest rates low for the war borrowing effort. The inflation spike that followed led to the 1951 Treasury-Fed accord that restored central bank independence. High long-term Treasury yields and a sliding dollar already reflect that economic setup, some analysts say, as investors require more compensation to hold U.S. assets that could lose value if inflation rises. "The administration wants to outgrow the debt ... but the other way to deal with the debt is to inflate it away," said Kelly Kowalski, head of investment strategy at MassMutual, who sees the dollar continuing to weaken. Higher inflation would mean the real value of government debt shrinks. Trump said last month that the Fed's benchmark interest rate should be three percentage points lower than the current 4.25%-4.50% range, arguing that such a reduction would save $1 trillion per year. He separately said the central bank could raise rates again if inflation rose. In the 12 months through June, inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index advanced 2.6% - still above the Fed's 2% target. Fed Chair Jerome Powell, however, has explicitly said that the U.S. central bank does not consider managing government debt when setting its monetary policy. Some investors argue fiscal dominance lies on an uncertain horizon, with rising debt yet to trigger unsustainable interest rates, while others see it already seeping into markets as long-term yields remain elevated even amid expectations of Fed rate cuts. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the Trump administration respects the Fed's independence, but that, with inflation having come down significantly from its highs in recent years, Trump believes it's time to reduce rates. The U.S. central bank so far has resisted those demands, though it is expected to lower borrowing costs at its September 16-17 meeting. It declined to comment on this story. FED'S MANDATE The dollar is down about 10% this year against a basket of major currencies while Treasury term premiums - the extra compensation investors demand for holding long-term debt - are high, even as yields have recently dipped amid slowing economic growth. "It's difficult to be bullish (on) long bonds in this environment," said Oliver Shale, an investment specialist at Ruffer, citing government spending that could keep inflation elevated and erode bond values. "If you have an economy that's running above its natural output, that's going to result in inflation or have important implications for inflation, interest rates, and probably the currency," he said. Thooft at Manulife said he was bearish on long-dated Treasuries as higher inflation would require higher term premiums. Despite years of economic growth, U.S. deficits have continued to balloon. Debt now stands at more than 120% of GDP, higher than after World War Two. The Fed normally manages inflation while Congress maintains fiscal discipline. That balance inverts under the fiscal dominance scenario, with inflation driven by fiscal policies and a Fed trying to manage the debt burden, said Eric Leeper, an economics professor at the University of Virginia. "The Fed cannot control inflation and keep interest payments on the debt low. Those are in conflict," Leeper said. One red flag for investors is the narrowing gap between interest rates and economic growth. Benchmark 10-year yields have hovered around 4.3% in recent weeks, while nominal GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.02% in the second quarter. When interest rates exceed the growth rate, debt as a percentage of gross domestic product typically rises even without new borrowing, making the debt increasingly unsustainable. "Risks to Fed independence stemming from fiscal dominance are high," Deutsche Bank analysts said in a recent note, citing high deficits and long-term rates close to nominal GDP growth. 'DOVISH BIAS' History offers cautionary tales. Extreme fiscal dominance triggered hyperinflation in Germany in the early 1920s and in Argentina in the late 1980s and early 2000s. More recently in Turkey, pressure on the central bank to keep interest rates low undermined policy credibility and fueled a currency crisis. A majority of economists polled by Reuters last month said they were worried the Fed's independence was under threat. Despite a barrage of criticism from Trump and administration officials, Powell has vowed to remain Fed chief until his term expires in May 2026. "It seems relatively clear that whoever is nominated for the seat, regardless of whatever views they've espoused in the past, is likely to articulate a dovish bias in order to be nominated," said Amar Reganti, a fixed income strategist at Hartford Funds and former Treasury official. Lower interest rates, however, might only be a temporary fix. The administration may be hoping to "juice nominal growth," despite the risk of creating higher inflation, to get to a place where real growth makes the debt trajectory sustainable, said Brij Khurana, a fixed income portfolio manager at Wellington. "The problem they have is ... the central bank is saying: 'I don't want to make that bet with you.'"
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Facing Trump tariffs, India's shrimp farmers consider switching to other businesses
By Rishika Sadam HYDERABAD, India/GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador (Reuters) -On India's southern coast, V. Srinivas thrived for two decades by farming shrimp, as the country became the top supplier of the delicacy to the United States. Now, Donald Trump's 50% tariff threat is forcing many to consider other ways of making money. Andhra Pradesh state sends the most shrimp from India to the U.S. and farmers there have spent millions of rupees (hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars) over the years to cultivate high-quality shrimp in saline ponds. Now they are being hit hard as Indian exporters have slashed rates they offer farmers by almost 20% after the tariff shock, wiping out most of their profits. "I am contemplating if I should do fish farming," said the 46-year-old from Veeravasaram village who has already mortgaged his family property and has $45,800 in outstanding loans. "These prices will not help me get any profits and I will not be able to pay off my loan." The United States is the biggest market for India's shrimp farmers and exporters, with clients including U.S. supermarket chains such as Walmart and Kroger. Last year, total seafood exports from India globally stood at $7.4 billion, with shrimp accounting for 40%. But the industry is now in troubled waters with President Trump's 25% tariff on imports from India already in place - the highest among major economies, and another 25% levy to kick in from August 27 to penalize New Delhi for buying Russian oil. By comparison, Ecuador, India's main rival for shrimp exports to the U.S., faces a much lower 15% tariff, heightening its competitive edge. In Andhra, there are around 300,000 farmers engaged in shrimp farming, selling products to dozens of exporters who ship to America. Pawan Kumar, head of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, said orders from U.S. clients have been paused in recent weeks as buyers aren't willing to absorb the tariff, and neither can exporters, forcing the latter to cut prices they pay to farmers. Although India also sells shrimp to other countries such as China, Japan and the UK, and likely will look to expand sales there and diversify into new markets, "that's not going to happen overnight," Kumar said. The impact is yet another example of how Trump's tariff threats are causing business disruptions across the world, especially in India, given it faces one of the steepest levies that have soured its relations with Washington. In Andhra, six of 12 farmers Reuters interviewed said they were considering putting shrimp farming on hold and looking at fish farming, vegetable retailing or other local businesses to tide over the crisis. The other six are choosing to wait it out a bit. Each round of shrimp cultivation takes about 2 months or more. While prices being offered for their shrimp are being slashed, the farmers said they still face loan payments and high operating costs for electricity, raw material and feed, as well as high land rentals. "There's hardly a 20-25% profit for us on good days, and if that's getting eaten up, what else is left?," said Gopinath Duggineni, the chief of a local union in Ongole city, adding the farmers plan to seek financial support from the state government. Ecuador, meanwhile, is closely tracking tariffs on India to seize on business opportunities, but producers there will go slow on new investments amid uncertainty over whether India and the Trump administration could strike a tariff deal, said Jose Antonio Camposano, president of National Chamber of Aquaculture of Ecuador. "India's exports are highly concentrated in the United States ... just as China is for us. So that is where we could gain ground if India withdraws," he said.
