The Senate on June 27 rejected a resolution submitted by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that calls for an immediate retraction of funding and support for any military activity related to Iran by the United States if it's not approved by Congress.
A response to the United States' bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities earlier in June, Kaine's resolution—brought to the floor after a cease-fire in the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran had already gone into effect—failed in a 47–53 vote. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined Republicans in voting down the measure.
It fits into a larger debate that has crossed party lines since the June 21 U.S. strikes on three major Iranian nuclear facilities. Some lawmakers, like Kaine, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and others, have condemned the unilateral executive decision, saying Congress should have been consulted under Article I of the Constitution.
In a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Kaine responded to criticisms that the resolution was irrelevant in the wake of the cease-fire agreement.
"I know everybody in this body is praying that the cease-fire that is in place now for a couple days works and that it holds," Kaine said. "I pray that that holds and that we won't need to be back here doing this again. But I do note that the President, even today, said he would certainly bomb Iran again."
He was referencing remarks made by President Donald Trump earlier on June 27, stating that he'd "absolutely" bomb Iran again if it enriched uranium, a critical ingredient for nuclear weapons.
Trump also said he was not worried about whether Iran had secret nuclear sites.
“They’re exhausted,” the president said during a White House press briefing.
“The last thing they’re thinking about is nuclear.
“I don’t believe that they’re going to go back into nuclear anytime soon. They spent over a trillion dollars on nuclear, and they never got it together, and nothing was moved from the site.”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said ahead of the vote that the measure was driven by "hate and vitriol" against Trump.
That sentiment was repeated by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who criticized Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) for allowing the legislation to receive a vote in the upper chamber.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told The Epoch Times that he had seen "extraordinary support" in rural Oregon—which he described as "Trump country”—for the idea of having Congress reassert its Article I powers on war.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) indicated in comments to reporters that an Authorization of Military Force request—such as the one authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003—should have been requested.
Trump's supporters on both sides of the aisle have said the strikes were legal and justified under the War Powers Act.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), an outspoken supporter of Israel and the U.S. strikes on Iran, rejected his party's claims that Trump's authorization of the strikes was unconstitutional.
"I don't believe that," Fetterman told reporters on June 23.
"If [Kaine's resolution] came out before this strike hit, then I would have voted no," Fetterman said, referring to the bombing as a "one-off" and noting that President Barack Obama had done something similar during his presidency.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told reporters that Trump had followed existing war powers law.
Constitutionality Question
Earlier this week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) suggested that the War Powers Act itself may be unconstitutional—an opinion shared by some Republicans in the upper chamber.When asked about Johnson's remarks, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) told The Epoch Times, "I think we ought to have that debate."
"I think without delving too deep into that ... the issues that we're debating today… it’s just not even a close call,” Schmitt said. “These are core Article II powers that were used in a very limited set of circumstances, and the President was well within his authority."
Schmitt said he was open to the broader debate about Congress's role in war powers, "but it just doesn't line up with what we're doing today."
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told The Epoch Times that the core issue was simple, without getting into deeper constitutional questions: "The question is only, does the President have authority to take a single strike to protect Americans? Yes, they do."
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) also agreed with Johnson, saying that if Kaine's measure had passed, Trump would have had a good shot at challenging the underlying law in court.
"Remember, Speaker Johnson was a constitutional attorney, and so I'd have a tendency to lean towards him ... I would say he probably knows what he's talking about," Mullin told The Epoch Times, citing Johnson's experience in arguing constitutional questions in court.