Follow us on social

Sen. Schiff (D.-Calif)

Senate effort to rein in Trump war on 'narco-terrorists' fails

War Powers Resolution fails largely along party lines

Reporting | QiOSK

The Senate narrowly failed to advance a measure on Wednesday that would have blocked the president from continuing his military campaign against so-called “narco-terrorists” off the coast of Venezuela and elsewhere in the Caribbean Sea.

The War Powers Resolution, sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), failed to discharge from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 48-51.

Lawmakers voted largely along party lines to can the resolution: Democrats mostly supported it, and Republicans mostly voted against it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who cosponsored the resolution, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the lone Republicans to support the measure. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) voted against it.

The vote follows a spate of repeated U.S. military attacks on boats in waters near Venezuela suspected of carrying illegal drugs to the United States, as part of what the Trump administration calls a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels there.

But on the Senate floor, resolution supporters stressed Washington’s ongoing attacks are illegal without Congress’s explicit approval. They said the Trump administration had not provided enough evidence it is attacking terrorists — but, even if they are, authorization for attacks on suspected terrorists must go through Congress first.

“These strikes were not authorized by Congress. Congress has not been shown the evidence of who exactly was on board these ships, whether they were all headed to the United States or some other destination, or whether they posed an imminent danger of attack on the United States,” Schiff said on the Senate floor.

“Such strikes are not legal, and they are not made legal or constitutional by the claim… that some or all of the occupants [belong to terrorist groups. That] does not deprive Congress of its vital role in approving the use of force,” he added.

“This resolution would just say very simply, that if the Trump administration wants to be at war against a terrorist organization, they should come to Congress, notify us and seek our approval,” resolution supporter Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said.

Legal experts likewise stressed that recent strikes are illegal.

“Everyone in Congress should be crystal-clear — these airstrikes are summary executions and extrajudicial killings," John Ramming Chappell, an Advocacy and Legal Fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, told RS. "They are manifestly illegal under both U.S. and international law."

In the House, Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced separate War Powers Resolutions to stop the unauthorized attacks targeting drug cartels in the region. Crow’s legislation is the House version of the Schiff and Kaine resolution, which halts the use of unauthorized force against “non-state organization[s] engaged in the promotion, trafficking, and distribution of illegal drugs and other related activities."

Omar’s resolution, introduced earlier, explicitly blocks the use of armed forces against the Venezuelan government, in addition to attacks on groups the Trump administration considers foreign terrorist organizations, without congressional approval.

“There will be more opportunities for Congress to rally against the president’s killings of civilians without due process. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to stop these attacks 60 days after they began, unless Congress authorizes them to continue," Ramming Chappell said. "We will likely see more War Powers Resolutions introduced if the president moves to strike Venezuela or another country."


Top Image Credit: Screen grab via senate.gov
Reporting | QiOSK
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

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.