Follow us on social

google cta
Tim Kaine

Senate vote to exert war powers over Trump fails

The resolution would have blocked the president from launching more unprovoked attacks on Iran

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

The Senate largely along partisan lines voted down a resolution that would have prevented President Trump from launching further attacks on Iran.

The resolution — introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) just days before U.S. military forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites last Saturday — failed by a vote of 47-53, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) breaking ranks with Democrats in voting against, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) the only Republican supporting.

It’s unclear what those strikes accomplished. While President Trump has been boasting about their alleged impact, saying they “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, a leaked assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency found that they “did not,” as CNN first reported, “destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.”

Meanwhile, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Friday that Iran’s nuclear facilities “suffered enormous damage” from the U.S. attack. A CIA assessment headed by Director John Ratcliffe a day after the DIA leak said "new intelligence from a historically reliable source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.” Senators briefed behind closed doors Thursday came away with different impressions of the damage.

Hours before the vote, Kaine noted that the framers of the U.S. Constitution “decided that war was too big a decision for one person” and said “the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress.”

Later in his remarks, the Virginia Democrat highlighted one of Trump’s recent social media posts in which the president shared a parody of the Beach Boys’ song “Barbara Ann” that was about bombing Iran. Kaine then recalled the framers’ stance on war powers: “We shouldn't premise a decision to send our sons and daughters into war on the judgment of a single person.”

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) — who has previously championed Congress’s war powers role over the executive branch — opposed Kaine’s resolution, saying before the vote that he was “confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat to the security of the United States and Israel, making the president’s decision to pursue limited, targeted action necessary and based on the appropriate legal foundation.” He said he thinks Kaine's resolution is unnecessary because Trump got a ceasefire and is purportedly not seeking more military action.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who also previously supported efforts at reining in the executive branch's war powers, voted against the Kaine-sponsored measure on Iran.

Sen. Paul, who supported the resolution, said just before the vote that he was doing so “to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for American service members and to stand up for America's strategic interest.”

Paul chastised those clamoring for more war with Iran.

“Many advocates for war, giving voice to their real feelings, have loudly opposed the current cease fire,” he said. “Those arguing against a cease fire give a callous testimony, insensitive to the cruelties of war.”

Paul added, “The American people are sick and tired of sending their children to fight and die in war zones on the other side of the world with no tangible U.S. interests at stake, abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce U.S. troops into wars is an affront to the Constitution and to the American people.”

The House will vote on similar war powers-related legislation in the coming weeks, one of which is bipartisan, led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).


Top image credit: screen grab via senate.gov
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.