Latest news with #TimKaine
CNN
11 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?
The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he? It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran. 'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday. Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations. Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks. There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world. The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain. Prev Next Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack. 'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.' In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force. The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways. The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission. The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it. For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term. That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare. The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.' Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval. The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance. OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level. What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security. The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.
CNN
12 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?
The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he? It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran. 'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday. Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations. Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks. There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world. The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain. Prev Next Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack. 'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.' In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force. The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways. The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission. The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it. For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term. That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare. The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.' Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval. The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance. OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level. What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security. The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Dubya Dubya II: Democrats see echoes of Bush Iraq War push in Trump's Iran nukes rhetoric
While Republicans largely fall in line behind President Donald Trump as he disregards experts and prepares for the United States to take on a larger role in Israel's war with Iran, using the pretense of nuclear weapons being built, Democrats are seeing flashbacks of the Iraq War. On Thursday, the White House said that the president would make his decision on whether to strike Iran in the next two weeks. This comes as the president has directly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on whether Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon. That raised alarms for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'If this president wants to completely ignore the intelligence community, we are playing in dangerous ground, and this is exactly the way we got ourselves into Iraq,' he told The Independent on Thursday. The parallels are quite stark. In 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, the Bush administration maintained that Iraq posed an existential threat, with Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case in a presentation before the United Nations. After the United States invaded Iraq, it found little evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. Now, Warner's Democratic colleague from Virginia, Sen. Tim Kaine, has introduced a war powers resolution that would trigger debate and a vote for any military action against Iran. 'No one in Congress should on a matter of war, just say, let the President do what they want,' he told The Independent. 'The president can engage in self defense without an authorization, but the notion that we're being asked to join a bombing campaign in Iran is clearly offensive. I think it was. It's a horrible idea, but if my colleagues think it's a good idea, I think they should introduce war authorization.' Only six senators who voted against the Iraq War — either as members of the House of Representatives or as senators — remain in the Senate. 'We've discovered, particularly Middle East, it's easier to break things hard to put them together,' said Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'So, and we've seen operations like the invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, which for the first few weeks looked like it was brilliant. Nothing happened. And four years later, we were wondering, what are we doing here and how do we get out?' By contrast, 14 senators in either capacity voted for the Iraq War. Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted for it as a member of the House and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, then in his first term in the Senate, voted for it. In addition, Schumer is considered a hawk on Israel and Iran, having opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement brokered by the Obama administration and US allies to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. The number of senators who remember the mistakes of Iraq continues to dwindle. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate minority whip who voted against it, is retiring at the end of next year. Sen. Adam Schiff of California, a veteran congressman who became a senator last year, voted for the war as a member of the House. One of the opponents of the Iraq war who remains is Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Wyden voted against Gabbard's confirmation, but still criticized Trump. 'This wouldn't be the first time where Donald Trump has done an about face on foreign policy,' Wyden told The Independent. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont who voted against the war as a congressman, who had his own resolution, joined onto Kaine's resolution. But even Democrats who came to Congress afterward, particularly those shaped by the War on Terror, want to rein in the president. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a freshman from Michigan, joined the CIA after the September 11 attacks partly because she lived in New York on the day of the attack. Slotkin led a war powers resolution after Trump launched a strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani. She said she is looking at Kaine's language. 'I think Congress, ever since the Iraq War, has been scared to exercise their oversight role in war and Democrats and Republicans,' she told The Independent. 'So I've been pretty consistent that we need to get back to that.' By contrast, so far, few Republicans save for Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have raised reservations about war with Iran. Paul's father, former congressman Ron Paul, voted against the War in Iraq. Below is a list of Senators who voted for and against the War in Iraq who remain in Congress. Yes as Senators: Yes in the House: Adam Schiff (D-CA) John Boozman (R-AR) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) John Thune (R-SD) Roger Wicker (R-MS) Jerry Moran (R-KS) Ed Markey (D-MA) Shelly Capito (R-WV) Senators who voted No: Dick Durbin (D-IL) Patty Murray (D-WA) Jack Reed (D-RI) Ron Wyden (D-OR) Democrats who voted No as House members: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Democrats raise war powers concerns as Trump mulls Iran strike
Senate Democrats are increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump is considering striking Iran without seeking authorization from Congress — or even filling them in on his plans. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) is mounting a last-ditch push to force a vote as soon as next week to restrain Trump from attacking Iran without Congress's approval.
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Lawmakers Revive War Powers Debate as Trump Threatens Iran
President Trump's escalating threats against Iran and public flirtation with joining Israel's bombing campaign against the country have reawakened a long-dormant debate on Capitol Hill about clawing back Congress's power to declare war. In the House, a Democrat and a Republican teamed up on Tuesday to introduce a resolution that would require congressional approval before U.S. troops could engage in offensive attacks against Iran. The measure by Representatives Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, underscored a view held by many in Congress that Mr. Trump should not be able to decide on his own whether the United States wades deeper into the conflict. Thirteen additional Democrats signed on to the resolution, but no Republicans so far were supporting the effort. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, on Monday introduced a similar resolution. Both efforts face long odds on Capitol Hill given Republicans' reluctance to challenge Mr. Trump's power, but with some lawmakers in both parties openly resisting further U.S. involvement, they are likely to prompt a vibrant debate. The measures enjoy a special status that will compel Congress to vote on them one way or the other in the coming days. Still, Speaker Mike Johnson has, so far, been successful in deflecting efforts to force Republican members to take any vote that would require them to challenge Mr. Trump's authority, and he could seek a procedural solution that would allow him to circumvent a vote on a war declaration. The move in the House quickly drew detractors, including Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York, who posted on social media that 'If AOC and Massie are a yes, that's a good bet that I'll be a no.' He was referring to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who was among the Democrats backing the measure. And in the Senate, defense hawks cheered Mr. Trump's bellicose posture. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, on Tuesday reiterated his stance that he supports U.S. involvement in the conflict against Iran. 'Yeah, I want us to go all in to help Israel destroy their nuclear programs,' he said, adding that he had spoken to Mr. Trump Monday evening about his views. When asked what role Congress should have in authorizing offensive strikes in Iran, Senator Bernie Moreno, Republican of Ohio, deferred to Mr. Trump. 'I have total faith and confidence in the president of the United States,' he said in an interview on Tuesday.
