Senate fails to advance Iran War Powers resolution
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, originally introduced the resolution last week, under the War Powers Act of 1973, before President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The resolution would have required congressional approval for any further strikes on Iran that are not in self-defense or due to imminent danger.
'I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person,' Kaine said on the Senate floor on Friday. 'War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person.'
Lawmakers voted against advancing it to the Senate floor, 53-47.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to advance the resolution. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted against it.
Friday's vote was a notable departure from a similar war powers vote in 2020 related to Iran, in which eight Republicans voted with Democrats, seven of whom are still in the Senate.
GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of those who had voted for the 2020 resolution and is now up for reelection, wrote on X Thursday, 'I'll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act.'
Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who also joined Democrats to back the resolution five years ago, said in his own post, 'Based on President Trump's stated goal of no further military action against Iran and conversations with senior national security officials regarding the Administration's future intentions, I do not believe an Iran war powers resolution is necessary at this time.'
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine added, 'I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.'
Paul declared he would back the resolution in a speech on the floor, in which he insisted Congress assert its constitutional authority.
'If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted,' he said. 'Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce US troops into wars is an affront to the constitution, and the American people.'
Paul also warned that no one can predict how the Israel-Iran conflict could progress. 'History is replete with examples of leaders who in their hubris thought they could shape the fate of nations, but were subsequently proven wrong as events ended up controlling them,' he said.
'Pandora's box has been opened,' added Paul. 'Congress must now focus its effort on de-escalation and preventing the call for regime change – the consequences of which, if applied to Iran, risk the total destabilization of the Middle East.'
The House could bring up its own Democrat-led war powers resolution after July 4. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has faced heavy backlash from the administration for criticizing the strikes on Iran, had also introduced a war powers resolution as well, but ultimately decided not to bring it up amid a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has sharply criticized members for demanding Trump receive congressional approval for strikes on Iran, adding that he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional.
'Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article Two powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right,' Johnson told reporters on Tuesday.
He also called allegations that the strikes on Iran were unconstitutional, or even impeachable, 'outrageous.'
'It would be comical if it were not so serious and stupid. Let me be clear and be as clear as possible: the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within President Trump's Article Two powers as commander in chief. It shouldn't even be in dispute,' he said.
Other Republicans also sharply criticized the resolution, with former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell warning in a statement that it was 'divorced from both strategic and constitutional reality.'
'Was degrading Iran's nuclear capability without expanding the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East a mistake? Was it wrong to seize the rare opportunity made possible by Israel's operations over the last 20 months? Did it not demonstrably advance U.S. interests in the region? Or are isolationists correct in suggesting that such interests do not exist?' he asked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's inspired Kennedy Center Honors picks spotlight liberals' own performance art
The Kennedy Center Honors are the nation's top performing-arts-achievement awards and their celebration the highlight of the capital's cultural calendar. Yet the honorees are typically announced in that most artless of ways — a press release. Not this year. You'd think liberals who decry conservatives as contemptible Philistines would be pleased to see a Republican president focus the country's attention on the arts with something of a show itself. But no — not when that president is Donald Trump. They slammed the selections too, though the list isn't much different from those under Democratic presidents such as Barack Obama — and reflects a wide swath of what Americans appreciate and admire in the arts. Of course, the small spectacle Trump held Wednesday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts wasn't exactly establishment Washington. The president walked to a podium in front of five pictures on easels, all covered with red cloth. Two attractive women in sleeveless dresses and high heels assisted — distinctly reminiscent of ring girls in boxing and Trump's beloved UFC — dramatically unveiling each honoree on cue. 'Rocky' creator-star Sylvester Stallone, glam-metal rockers KISS, country king George Strait, disco goddess Gloria Gaynor and Broadway luminary Michael Crawford will receive the 48th annual Kennedy Center Honors. Trump himself — also the center's chairman — will host the gala tribute Dec. 7, which CBS will air later that month. DC doesn't have a lot of glitz, so the December weekend honorees and those paying tribute to them spend in town is a big deal. I know because I covered the cocktail parties, the rehearsals, the red carpets and more for years when I lived in Washington. And the political and performing elite can't stand the idea of Donald Trump taking part in the ritzy rituals. Trump didn't attend a single Honors gala in his first term after 2017 honoree 'All in the Family' creator Norman Lear said he'd skip any White House event to protest the president. But Trump 2.0 is bolder and brasher — and wants to make real his 'vision for a Golden Age in arts and culture,' as he put it. The media fawned over First Lady Michelle Obama's White House Kitchen Garden. They published deep think pieces about her husband's summer playlists. But the same people who believe right-wingers want to cut all cultural education are annoyed when a GOP president spends an hour talking about great artists. 'You might be wondering why you haven't heard much about important issues like inflation, health care or infrastructure lately, but there's a very good reason: Donald Trump doesn't care,' late-night talker Seth Meyers said. Conservatives 'want to go on Fox News and whine about woke,' he continued. 'This is what the right really cares about. This is why Trump is spending his precious time announcing the Kennedy Center Honors.' Cue the subtle — and not-so-subtle — digs about the choices. 'The line-up explains a lot about him, his power and why he's president,' CNN's Stephen Collinson intoned. It's 'more populist than 'high' culture.' 'At the Kennedy Center, Trump Puts His Pop Culture Obsession on Display,' The New York Times headlined its story. Time Senior Correspondent Philip Elliott declared, 'The Kennedy Center Honors Is Now Just Another Trump Show,' and likened the Florida man to Stalin, who made the genius Shostakovich's life a living nightmare. This year's choices, Elliott wrote, 'signal yet the latest example of Trump putting his thumb on the scale of American culture and tossing it back to yesteryear.' Who's going to tell the storied Time the Kennedy Center Honors are lifetime-achievement awards whose winners always send us 'back to yesteryear'? Liberals howling this isn't the highfalutin' list it should be forget the first awardees under Obama included Bruce Springsteen, Robert De Niro and Mel 'Blazing Saddles' Brooks. LL Cool J won in 2017. Trump's is not a way-out-there list. It's true one spot usually goes to classical music or dance, and I'm disappointed that's missing — though to Trump, Michael Crawford is operatic. And he did originate the title role of 'The Phantom of the Opera,' which Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote for his then-wife, classical soprano Sarah Brightman. KISS is an inspired choice — a great American story. Two Jewish New York kids whose families had fled the Holocaust, Stanley Bert Eisen and Chaim Witz, transformed themselves into the makeup-laden, otherworldly Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons. And in doing so, they transformed concert touring itself. Texan George Strait helped bring back a very American genre as a trailblazer in neotraditional country in the 1980s, when pop crossovers were stealing stages in Nashville and beyond. Now young country-not-crossover stars such as Zach Top and Parker McCollum cite his influence. As a Strait fan from Alberta, the Texas of Canada, told me, 'People like him because he's real. He's not fake ass. And he can actually sing.' Authenticity — it reminds me of my time covering the Honors. At the various events, the rest of the press wanted to talk only to the cool kids. At the cocktail party the year Steve Martin won, for example, their sights were set on well-known actors. That let me have Ricky Jay, Steve Martin's friend who appeared with him in the David Mamet film 'The Spanish Prisoner,' all to myself. He was one of the greatest magicians of our time, a learned man with an amazing medieval collection. Another year, it was just me and an AP reporter left on the red carpet for Chris Cornell, there to perform for The Who — the super famous stars had walked it already. The AP fellow knew nothing about him, so I was able to ask all of the questions of one of rock's greatest voices. Speaking of David Mamet, can Trump turn his attention to Mark Twain Prize for American Humor next? The Kennedy Center refuses to give it to politically incorrect geniuses like him and Woody Allen. Washington could certainly use some intelligent laughs these days.
CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump administration to more heavily scrutinize "good moral character" requirement for U.S. citizenship
The Trump administration is signaling it will more heavily scrutinize applications filed by legal immigrants seeking American citizenship, in its latest effort to tighten access to U.S. immigration benefits. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency overseeing the country's legal immigration system, instructed officers on Friday to consider additional factors when determining whether immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship have a "good moral character." Typically, legal immigrants with U.S. permanent residency, also known as a green card, can apply for naturalized American citizenship after a 3- or 5-year period, depending on their case. Demonstrating "a good moral character" has long been one of the requirements in U.S. immigration law for American citizenship, alongside passing English and civics tests. For decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, the "good moral character" assessment has generally been satisfied if applicants don't have any of the criminal offenses or disqualifying conduct outlined in U.S. immigration law. Those disqualifying factors range from violent crimes like murder and aggravated felonies to drug offenses and being a "habitual drunkard." But a policy issued Friday by USCIS expands the "good moral character" assessment, saying that determination must involve "more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing." Instead, the review, the agency told its officers, should be "a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character." The directive orders officers to place a "greater emphasis" on applicants' "positive attributes and contributions," listing community involvement, family caregiving and ties, educational attainment, "stable and lawful" employment, the length of time spent in the U.S., and paying taxes as some of those factors. The memo also mandates "greater scrutiny" of factors that show applicants lack a "good moral character," beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct detailed in U.S. immigration law. Those factors, the policy said, include "acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside," including actions that are "technically lawful" but also "inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community." USCIS listed "reckless or habitual traffic infractions, or harassment or aggressive solicitation" as some of those actions. Lastly, the new USCIS policy instructs officers to weigh factors that could show that applicants who have engaged in wrongdoing have rehabilitated, such as complying with probation, paying overdue taxes or child support and receiving letters of support from their community. Over the past decade, the U.S. government has naturalized between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants as citizens annually, USCIS figures show. In a statement to CBS News, USCIS chief spokesman Matthew Tragesser said the directive is another effort by President Trump's administration to "restore integrity" to the U.S. immigration system. "U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship — it should only be offered to the world's best of the best," Tragesser added. "Today, USCIS is adding a new element to the naturalization process that ensures America's newest citizens not only embrace America's culture, history, and language but who also demonstrate Good Moral Character." Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official during the Biden administration, suggested the Trump administration's policy is designed to scare legal immigrants from applying for American citizenship and require officers to put their "thumb on the scale" to find more reasons to deny applications. "They're trying to increase the grounds for denial of U.S. citizenship by kind of torturing the definition of good moral character to encompass extremely harmless behavior," Rand said, citing the policy's reference to traffic infractions. While the Trump administration has launched a highly visible crackdown on illegal immigration by deploying thousands of troops to the southern border, expanding immigration raids across the country, and fast-tracking deportations of those in the U.S. illegally, it has simultaneously moved to restrict legal immigration, with less fanfare. The Trump administration has virtually shut down refugee admissions, terminated Biden-era programs that allowed migrants to enter the U.S. legally, limited visas for certain countries and implemented aggressive vetting procedures for legal immigration benefits. Those efforts include expanded vetting of social media activity of legal immigrants and stricter screening requirements for some applications.
