On Friday evening, United States senators will take a vote on whether to emasculate themselves by handing over to President Trump authorities that are rightfully theirs. Naturally, just about every Republican will vote “yes” on this with great enthusiasm. Will every Democrat vote “no”?
The vote concerns an important new measure that would require Trump to seek congressional authorization for engaging in war with Iran. The bill—sponsored by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia—requires only a simple majority for passage, so success, while unlikely, is not impossible.
A handful of Democratic senators may be at risk of defecting. If they do, it would put success out of reach entirely. And that would be a travesty. It would only embolden Trump at a time when he is clearly growing more unhinged, power-crazed, and deaf to outside voices.
Trump just told reporters that if Iran continues seeking nukes, he would bomb again “without a question.” He ranted wildly on Truth Social that Iran had better do his bidding going forward. Clearly his anger is worsening at seeing the success of his bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities questioned. This is not the time to send the message that Congress is uninterested in reining Trump in.
As of now, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania is the only one of the body’s 45 Democrats (and the two independents who caucus with them) to explicitly declare opposition. “I would never want to restrict any future president, Republican or Democrat, to do this kind of military exercise,” Fetterman said Thursday.
Fetterman also insisted he wants to “reserve the right” for future presidents to do the “kinds of things” that President Barack Obama has done in the past or that “Trump did with Iran,” which Fetterman supported.
Still, according to a source familiar with the situation, Fetterman is against the measure but does not want to be the deciding vote that kills it. So his vote may still be up in the air.
The Kaine resolution would prohibit use of the armed forces for “hostilities” against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by Congress, pursuant to the idea that under the Constitution, Congress “has the sole power to declare war.” Though Congress already passed a measure requiring congressional authorization for military hostilities—the War Powers Resolution of 1973—presidents of both parties have unilaterally launched various strikes and limited operations, culminating in Trump’s bombing of Iran.
A small handful of the Senate’s 53 Republicans—ones who voted for a similar resolution in 2020—are possibly in play. That includes senators such as Rand Paul and Todd Young, who haven’t revealed their intentions. While it remains likely most or all of those few will punt, if even a tiny few vote “yes,” the result could turn on whether every last Democrat supports it.
An explicit prohibition against further warmaking by Trump is badly needed right now. It’s sometimes said that this debate is moot because Trump has already undertaken his bombing and Iran and Israel have reached a fragile ceasefire. But Trump’s conduct over the last couple of weeks has only underscored the need for Congress to get far more involved than thus far.
In the run-up to the bombing, for instance, Trump cavalierly dismissed conclusions from his own intelligence officials that Iran’s nuclear program didn’t pose an imminent threat. He decided to go forward based at least in part on what he saw on Fox News. His warmongering threats likely alerted Iran in ways that permitted it to move its enriched uranium.
Then, after the bombing, Trump rushed to insist that the mission had been an absolutely perfect success in every way. He raged over an intelligence assessment that it had only set back Iran’s nuclear program a few months and that the enriched uranium had indeed been moved. And Trump officials gave senators a classified briefing Thursday that made things worse: As Democrats noted, it raised more questions than it answered about how the decision was made, what its impact has been, and whether we can trust anything the administration says about any of it.
All of this strongly argues for Congress to be much more deeply involved in this sort of decision-making as it’s happening. Passing this resolution would be a strong signal from the U.S. Senate that Trump does not have free rein to do this again, at a time when more decisions like this may well be looming.
“It would make clear that he doesn’t now have the power to bomb Iran again—something that he could face pressure from hawks and Israel to do if intelligence continues to reveal that Iran’s nuclear program was not completely destroyed,” Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy Advocacy, told me.
It’s very possible all 47 Democratic-aligned senators will vote for the measure. Fetterman might do the right thing. But there could still be defections. Then there’s the House: Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who is co-sponsoring a similar measure in the House, predicts that up to 20 House Democrats could defect.
The arguments against the measure are bad. Fetterman says lawmakers shouldn’t “restrict” presidents from undertaking actions like the bombing of Iran. But under the Constitution, the president is not supposed to have unrestricted authority to do this in the first place. The power to declare war falls to Congress to begin with.
Fetterman is right that Obama undertook unilateral military actions. But that’s exactly why some Democrats and liberals (including yours truly) argued at the time that Congress should reassert its authorities. The same principle applies now.
In the modern era, presidents have tended to argue that “limited” military actions don’t constitute “war” under the Constitution, enabling them to slowly expand their warmaking authorities. True, the debate over the Constitution’s exact requirements is complicated. But the case is strong that these actions do constitute “war” and do require Congress to authorize them. And whatever you think on that question, a vote for this measure would clearly define Congress’s role on this matter, ending any ambiguity. Shouldn’t Democrats want that?
Nor should any Democrat argue that voting for this would come across as reluctance to “responsibly work with the president.” Any lawmaker who wants to support Trump in further military hostilities can do so. Passing this would give lawmakers a more active role in that decision-making. Voting against this measure won’t earn them any “responsibility” points from either pundits or voters. It will only empower Trump to make these decisions wholly without their input. It will abdicate leadership entirely.
Yes, virtually every Republican will vote “no.” But Democrats must be the party that stands on the side of congressional authorization for further military action—firmly and unequivocally. Democrats: You still have a chance to get this right.
