US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force.
'If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time,' Kaine said in a speech before the vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend U.S. strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'obliterated,' as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
'We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line,' Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, with some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the president's veto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
22 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Article 370 was against Ambedkar's ideology of one Constitution: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday said that BR Ambedkar envisioned one Constitution to keep the country united and never favoured the idea of a separate Constitution for any state, PTI reported. Justice Gavai said that the Supreme Court drew inspiration from Ambedkar's vision of a united India when it upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370 in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court, with Justice Gavai as a member of the five-judge Constitution bench, upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. 'When the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country,' Justice Gavai said while addressing a gathering at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in New Delhi. 'If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution.' The Chief Justice of India added that Ambedkar had faced criticism, with some people saying that the Constitution's strong federalism might compromise national unity, especially during wartime. Ambedkar had then responded to his critics that the Constitution would suit all the challenges and keep the nation united, PTI quoted Justice Gavai as saying. 'See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka,' he added. 'Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united.'
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Major League Baseball Is Too Silent on Immigration Raids
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last week, at the height of the immigration protests convulsing Los Angeles, federal agents showed up at Dodger Stadium, seeking access to the parking lot. Up to that point, the Dodgers had refused to comment on the Trump administration's immigration sweeps and their effect on the city's Latino community. The silence stoked complaints that the team had turned its back on some of its most passionate devotees. By some accounts, Latinos comprise over 40% of Dodger fans. But the morning agents came, the Dodgers finally acted. The team denied them access to the parking lot and a day later announced a $1 million pledge to help immigrant families harmed by the ongoing raids. That's a modest show of support for an organization worth an estimated $7.7 billion, and it hasn't satisfied everyone. But satisfactory or not, it's a clear indication of whose side the Dodgers are taking. Major League Baseball and its 29 other clubs, on the other hand, aren't following the Dodgers' lead, preferring silence. If this is their way of not drawing the ire of President Donald Trump, it's an awkward strategy. Immigration has been essential to baseball's history and continues to fuel its growth. In America's early years, baseball was a new sport for a new country. For immigrants, making a mark on an organized team was an indicator that the player — along with his ethnic group — was upwardly mobile and, finally, an assimilated American. Superstar shortstop and national sensation Honus Wanger, a son of German immigrant parents, was a prime example of this during the late 19th and early 20th century. He uplifted the German-American status, and in his community, he was an icon for making it big. Three-quarters of a century later, Fernando Valenzuela, a Mexican pitcher for the Dodgers, repeated the feat. In 1981, he electrified Los Angeles and his community with a dominant season, including seven complete games and five shutouts, which netted him Rookie of the Year and Cy Young honors (still the only player to win both in the same season).'Fernandomania,' as his early to mid-80s heyday is recalled, was a cultural phenomenon that diversified and drove attendance upward. In 1981, the Dodgers drew an average of 7,500 additional fans when he pitched at home, and an extra 19,000 when he started on the road. Mexican-Americans were an estimated 10% of the team's supporters when he joined the team; now the Dodgers — affectionately known across LA as Los Doyers — are a unifying institution for the city's Latinos. More fans, inevitably, means more kids playing baseball, both at home and abroad. Though there are a range of factors responsible for the growth of baseball internationally, the increase in Latin American and other international players has certainly contributed to the expansion and development of deep international talent pipelines. For MLB teams, bringing that talent to US shores is only constrained by their ability to scout. During the 1930s, a period of notoriously tight immigration restrictions and mass deportations, less than 1% of MLB players were foreign-born. Thankfully, in the post-war period, America decided to open its borders. The result? The number of foreign-born players in the league has seen steady growth over the decades. In 2025, nearly 28% of MLB players are foreign-born, and it's simply impossible to imagine baseball without stars such as Shohei Ohtani and Juan Soto. Those international stars, in turn, are leading a surge of interest in the game and the business of baseball. MLB is on track for its third straight year of attendance growth, and viewership in the US and Japan is surging in 2025. Of course, other factors are in play too, but does anyone seriously think a less international game would be as well-played, entertaining, and lucrative? Trump's immigration policies put that success at risk. For example, under the terms of his recently enacted travel ban, the issuance of new visas to Cuban and Venezuelan nationals is severely restricted. Dozens of players from both countries — Hall of Famers like Tony Pérez and current players like Jose Altuve — have made prominent contributions to MLB for decades. The new policies will make it far more difficult for teams to bring new signees from either country to the US. But even if loopholes are found, the message to players and their families in these baseball hotbeds is hardly welcoming. So far, MLB has chosen to remain silent on these changes, just as it has clammed up over the deportations that are running through its Latino fanbase. Perhaps the league and its teams believe that quiet diplomacy is the best way to approach the Trump administration on immigration-related matters. But if so, there's little public indication that doing so has achieved anything other than damaging relations between the Dodgers and their fans. Meanwhile, other sports are acting. In mid-June, the players associations for the Women's National Basketball Association and the National Women's Soccer League issued a joint statement of support for immigrants experiencing hardship due to the raids. Angel City FC of the NWSL took it a step further and distributed 10,000 T-shirts to fans and players emblazoned with 'Immigrant City Football Club' on the front. Proceeds from sales of the shirts go to an organization offering legal assistance to immigrants. Of course, no team or sport will convince Trump to change his course on immigration. But by showing solidarity with their fanbases, players and teams strengthen the community connections that are critical to growing sports, and the commerce around them. That's a legacy that can outlast any executive order. It's time for Major League Baseball to step up to the plate. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of sports. He is the author, most recently, of 'Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.' More stories like this are available on
