Democrats Divided Over Iran Strikes, Demand Vote In Trump's War Powers
Democrats bristled Sunday over US President Donald Trump's decision to launch air strikes on Iran without seeking authorisation from Congress, accusing the Republican of violating the constitution and demanding a vote to rein in his war powers.
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives argued that US intelligence had not shown an imminent threat from the Middle Eastern country that justified Trump's unilateral action.
"President Trump's actions in bombing Iran puts the US on the brink of a wider war in the Middle East, all without constitutionally required Congressional approval," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said in a statement.
Democrats were divided between those demanding a vote on a war powers resolution to constrain Trump's authority to launch further action and a smaller group, who maintained that the strikes were grounds for the Republican leader's impeachment.
They included Illinois moderate Sean Casten and New York leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who accused the president of having "impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations."
Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respectively, said Trump had "dramatically increased" America's risk of becoming embroiled in a new Middle Eastern conflagration.
"No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy," Schumer said.
The Democrats have foreign policy hawks in their ranks and many were quick to point to the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose --- while still upbraiding Trump for acting without consulting lawmakers.
"The Constitution makes clear that the power to authorize war lies with Congress... The American people deserve more than vague rhetoric and unilateral decisions that could set off a wider war," said Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee.
The loudest Democratic voice in support of the strikes was staunchly pro-Israel Senator John Fetterman, who singled out Trump for praise -- something even party colleagues who support the strikes have avoided.
"As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by (Trump)," the Pennsylvania centrist posted on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities."
Republicans have been lining up since the strikes to praise Trump and endorse his decision to hit three Iranian nuclear facilities -- with little dissent among the ranks.
But Kentucky conservative Thomas Massie accused Trump of escalating the conflict between Israel and Iran.
"When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war," said Massie, who introduced a bipartisan resolution earlier this month to require any military action to be approved by lawmakers.
"I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war... so they can make war."
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
14 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Anti-Maoist operations should not be politicised, must be conducted in transparent manner: Congress
Congress leader Sachin Pilot on Monday said that the ongoing security operations against Maoists should not be politicised and must be carried out in a transparent manner, PTI reported. Pilot, who is in charge of the party's Chhattisgarh unit, made the comment in the state while responding to recent remarks by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. On Sunday, the home minister had announced that the operations would continue throughout monsoon. Operations are usually suspended during the season as rainfall and floods hamper combat inside dense forests, The Hindu reported. On Monday, Pilot said that whatever action is taken against Maoists should be 'effective, transparent and should not have any political colour'. 'It is a matter of internal security,' the Rajasthan MLA added. 'Strict steps should be taken after a lot of deliberation,' he said. 'Action should be…accountable…should be done on the ground and not by giving speeches again and again.' The Union government has repeatedly vowed to end Maoism by March 31, 2026. According to the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, more than 400 suspected Maoists were killed in the Bastar region in 2024-'25. The police have stated that 186 suspected Maoists have been killed in gunfights with security personnel in the Bastar range in 2025. In 2024, 217 suspected Maoists were killed by security forces across Chhattisgarh. Malini Subramaniam has reported for Scroll that while many of those killed in Chhattisgarh's Bastar region in 2024 were declared by the police to be reward-carrying Maoists, several families dispute the claim. The families claim that the persons killed were civilians.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. to screen personal social media accounts of F, M, and J category non-immigrant visa applicants
Just days after the United States announced that foreign students applying for a visa must unlock their social media accounts for government review, the U.S. government has extended this condition to all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa. In a social media post, the U.S. Embassy in India, said that 'every visa adjudication is a national security decision,' while adding that the applicants will have to 'adjust the privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to 'public' to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States.' Noting that the United States has required visa applicants to provide social media identifiers on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa application forms, since 2019, it added that all available information will be used in the visa screening and vetting 'to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security.' The Trump administration last month temporarily halted the scheduling of new visa interviews for foreign students hoping to study in the U.S. while preparing to expand the screening of their activity on social media, officials said. With regards to the information regarding visa scheduling, the U.S. State Department in a June 18 statement had said that the overseas posts will resume scheduling F, M, and J nonimmigrant visa applications soon. Applicants should check the relevant embassy or consulate website for appointment availability. The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests, and that all applicants credibly establish their eligibility for the visa sought, including that they intend to engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission.
