This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/politics/trump-iran-war-powers.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
House Votes to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers House Votes to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House voted on Thursday to force President Trump to go to Congress for authorization before taking further military action against Iran, in a sharp rebuke of his decision to ratchet up hostilities with Tehran without the explicit approval of the legislative branch. WASHINGTON — A sharply divided House voted on Thursday to force President Trump to come to Congress for authorization before taking further military action against Iran, in a sharp response to his ratcheting up of hostilities with Tehran without the explicit approval of the legislative branch.
The vote was 224 to 194, almost entirely along party lines, to curtail Mr. Trump’s war-making power. It followed a bitterly partisan debate in which Democrats insisted that the president must involve Congress in any escalation against Iran, and Republicans — following Mr. Trump’s lead — accused Democrats of coddling the enemy by questioning the commander in chief at a dangerous moment. The vote was 224 to 194, almost entirely along party lines, to curtail Mr. Trump’s war-making power. It came as Democrats insisted that the president must involve Congress in any escalation against Iran, and Republicans — following Mr. Trump’s lead — accused Democrats of coddling the enemy in questioning the commander in chief at a dangerous moment.
Democrats, joined by two Republican senators, have raised questions about Mr. Trump’s rationale and justification for ordering the drone strike last week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, casting doubt that there was an imminent threat that warranted a deeply provocative action. The action was yet another constitutional challenge of the president by the Democratic-led House after its historic vote in December to impeach Mr. Trump, and as the Senate was preparing for a trial on whether to remove him. The debate over the president’s war powers raged a week after he ordered a strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s top security commander, a major provocation taken without informing Congress that has had a cascade of consequences.
In pressing forward with the War Powers Resolution, they reignited a bitter dispute that pits presidential power against congressional prerogatives and voiced grave concern that if they did not step in to check Mr. Trump, he could careen toward war with Iran without consulting Congress. Amid the heightened tensions with Iran, Democrats vowed to impose another check on the president, voicing grave concerns that without legislative action, Mr. Trump would careen toward war.
“If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the president owes the American public a conversation,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, a former C.I.A. and Pentagon analyst specializing in Shiite militias and the sponsor of the legislation. The measure, she added, “allows us to start that debate as our founders intended.”“If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the president owes the American public a conversation,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, a former C.I.A. and Pentagon analyst specializing in Shiite militias and the sponsor of the legislation. The measure, she added, “allows us to start that debate as our founders intended.”
But in a striking display of loyalty to Mr. Trump, Republicans equated support for the resolution with backing for America’s enemies. They embraced an argument that top administration officials have made privately to lawmakers in recent days, that questioning the president’s authorization to confront Iran militarily is dangerous and unpatriotic. In moving forward legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution, lawmakers reignited a bitter dispute that was as much about Mr. Trump’s volatile style of policymaking as it was about how to balance congressional prerogatives against a president’s power to wage war. That the deliberations unfolded during an election year and centered on an impeached president made them all the more extraordinary.
“Instead of supporting the president, unfortunately my Democratic colleagues are dividing Americans at a critical time, weakening our leverage overseas and emboldening our enemy, the largest sponsor of terror in the world,” said Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The measure itself was largely symbolic, without the force of law and unlikely to tie Mr. Trump’s hands even if the Senate endorsed it. The Senate could separately move as soon as next week to take up a similar resolution sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia.
But the debate it brought to the House floor was the latest in which lawmakers, citing their obligations as a coequal branch of government, voiced deep skepticism about a potentially devastating military conflict. It echoed the searing disputes over United States involvement in Vietnam and in the run-up to the Iraq war, when Congress — then as now dubious about intelligence cited as grounds for military action — hotly contested the scope of presidential war powers.
Early Thursday, as yet another censure from the House loomed, Mr. Trump lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of “defending a monster” by questioning his decision to authorize the strike that killed General Suleimani. He urged House Republicans on Twitter to vote down “Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.”
In a striking display of loyalty, Republicans equated support for the measure with emboldening America’s enemies, and embraced an argument that top administration officials have made privately to lawmakers in recent days, that questioning the president’s authorization to confront Iran militarily is dangerous and unpatriotic.
Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican, singled out Ms. Pelosi for calling the strike a “needless provocation” earlier in the week.
“What is a provocation,” Ms. Cheney said, “is the introduction of this resolution, which sows doubt about America’s resolve and makes war more likely.”
The criticism was similar to one Mr. Trump made earlier in the day at the White House, when he charged that in raising concerns about his actions, Democrats were effectively siding with General Suleimani.The criticism was similar to one Mr. Trump made earlier in the day at the White House, when he charged that in raising concerns about his actions, Democrats were effectively siding with General Suleimani.
“Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats wanted to defend him,” Mr. Trump said, although neither the speaker nor any Democrat has done so. “I think that’s a very bad thing for this country.” “Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats wanted to defend him,” the president said, although neither the speaker nor any Democrat has done so. “I think that’s a very bad thing for this country.”
His comments came not long after Ms. Pelosi had told reporters on Capitol Hill that General Suleimani was “a terrible person,” even as she insisted the war powers debate was a vital one. His comments came not long after Ms. Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill that General Suleimani was “a terrible person,” even as she insisted the war powers debate was vital.
“It’s not about how bad they are,” she said of the Iranians, “it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering because of it.”“It’s not about how bad they are,” she said of the Iranians, “it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering because of it.”
Lawmakers were rankled by the White House’s failure to confer with Congress before the strike, and were dissatisfied with the classified notification the administration sent to Capitol Hill afterward. And they left their first briefings on the matter on Wednesday, with Mr. Trump’s national security team, irate. The acrimony on the House floor on Thursday highlighted the deep mistrust between the executive and legislative branches that has only deepened after the spate of military escalations this week.
Citing the president’s mercurial style and the chaotic nature of his foreign policy, Democrats accused the administration of failing to present credible information or a clear justification for the strike against General Suleimani. They lined up on the House floor to argue that the week of escalating tensions underscored Congress’s duty to reclaim its constitutional authority to declare war. In recent days, Democratic lawmakers, joined by two Republican senators, have accused the president and his top military officials of dismissing Congress’s role as a coequal branch of government. Lawmakers were furious at the White House’s failure to confer with Congress before the strike, as well as a classified document the administration sent to lawmakers notifying them of the move. Their ire was only raised on Wednesday by a pair of briefings with Mr. Trump’s national security team.
“We have seen that developments can change day by day, hour by hour,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Should tensions escalate again, Congress should have a say before hostilities are launched. It is really that simple.” In one of the briefings, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah said, administration officials, openly contemptuous of lawmakers, were unwilling to engage in a genuine discussion about a possible military escalation in the Middle East. The message the officials sent, Mr. Lee said, was, “Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. If you do, you will be emboldening Iran.”
The resolution passed on Thursday would not constrain Mr. Trump’s constitutional ability to mobilize forces to act in the face of an imminent threat. That language has become particularly fraught in recent weeks, as administration officials have insisted that the president approved the strike that killed General Suleimani to guard against a looming attack. They have also argued that the action was covered under an authorization of military force passed by Congress in 2002 to approve invading Iraq.
Republican argued that Mr. Trump acted well within his authority.
“If we’re going to be serious about keeping this country safe, absolutely there’s a role for Congress to play,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican. “But you’ve got to support the efforts of your commander in chief to carry out his constitutional duty, which he has to keep this country safe.”
But with the administration refusing to detail what exactly that threat was, Democratic lawmakers, as well as Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and Mr. Lee, have grown increasingly skeptical of the justification behind the strike.
Mr. Trump offered a fresh rationale on Thursday, claiming without offering evidence that the Iranians were “looking to blow up our embassy” in Baghdad.
Normally, legislation enacted by House Democrats that the Trump administration opposes never gets a vote in the Senate because the Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, refuses to bring it up for a vote. But the War Powers Resolution takes away that option by saying that if one chamber passes such a measure, the other must vote on it within 18 days.
Still, the House measure could amount to little more than a statement of principle, without the force of law.Still, the House measure could amount to little more than a statement of principle, without the force of law.
House Democrats opted to use a concurrent resolution — the type that is considered to be enacted once both chambers approve it and is never presented to the president for his signature — rather than a joint resolution, which Mr. Trump could veto. House Democrats opted to use a concurrent resolution — the type that is considered to be enacted once both chambers approve it, and is never presented to the president for his signature — rather than a joint resolution, which Mr. Trump could veto.
“This is a statement of the Congress of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters, “and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not.” “This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that to have legal effect, an action of Congress must be presented to the president for signature or veto. But Ms. Pelosi insisted on Thursday, without elaborating, that the House measure would have legal teeth. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that to have legal effect, an action of Congress must be presented to the president for his signature or veto. But Ms. Pelosi insisted on Thursday, without elaborating, that the House measure would have legal teeth.
Most Republicans, who are often reluctant to criticize the president, especially on matters of national security, have stood in lock step with Mr. Trump and his administration, rejecting suggestions that Congress must reassert its war powers in light of the recent hostilities with Iran. They contend that Mr. Trump showed restraint and was well within his authority to respond to an imminent threat. Only three Republicans — Representatives Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — along with the House’s lone independent, Representative Justin Amash, joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Eight Democrats, the majority of them freshmen from conservative-leaning districts, broke ranks to oppose it.
Mr. Trump took to Twitter early Thursday morning to rally House Republicans to oppose the measure, calling on them to “vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.” “Today’s War Powers Resolution is a nonbinding resolution that simply restates existing law and sends the message that war is imminent,” Representative Max Rose, Democrat of New York, said in a statement explaining his opposition. “I refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace.”
Later at the White House, Mr. Trump tried out a new rationale for having targeted General Suleimani, claiming without offering evidence that the Iranians were “looking to blow up our embassy” in Baghdad. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto during the Vietnam War, when Americans were deeply torn over a conflict in which they found themselves deeply entrenched. The law was meant to empower Congress to pass legislation that directs a president to terminate military action unless lawmakers have explicitly voted to authorize it.
Only three Republicans — Representatives Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — along with the House’s lone independent, Representative Justin Amash, joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Eight Democrats broke ranks to oppose it. Since then, it has been broadly understood that Congress must use joint resolutions to try to terminate a war, essentially meaning that it takes the votes of two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers — the amount needed to override a veto, which is politically far more difficult to achieve.
Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, empowering Congress to pass legislation that directs a president to terminate military action unless lawmakers have explicitly voted to authorize them. But lawmakers have never succeeded in using it to curb a military operation, in part because it appeared to be severely weakened by a Supreme Court decision a decade later that struck down a similar legislative veto mechanism in an unrelated immigration law. But lawmakers have historically declined to even try to use the War Powers Resolution to bring a halt to unauthorized military conflicts abroad. As the nation plunged into war in the Middle East during the administration of President George W. Bush, even amid skepticism about the intelligence that launched the United States into the conflicts, Congress approved new, wide-ranging authorizations of military force.
Since then, it has been broadly understood that Congress must use joint resolutions to try to terminate a war, essentially meaning that it takes the votes of two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers — the amount needed to override a veto, which is politically far more difficult to achieve. Last year, for example, the Senate and the House both passed a joint resolution to force Mr. Trump to end support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. But Mr. Trump vetoed it, and an override vote in the Senate failed 53 to 45. “I fought in a war started by a president with false and trumped up intelligence,” said Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former Marine who served in Iraq. “We cannot let this president do the same.”
The Senate could move as soon as next week to take up a similar resolution on Iran sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. That measure faces an uphill climb in the Republican-controlled Senate, but the administration briefing delivered to senators on Wednesday so enraged two Republicans, Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, that they said they would support it. That measure would mandate that Mr. Trump wind down military action against Iran within 30 days unless Congress voted to authorize it. In the Senate, Mr. Kaine’s resolution faces an uphill climb in the Republican-controlled chamber, but the administration briefing delivered to senators Wednesday so enraged Mr. Lee and Mr. Paul that they said they would support it. The resolution would also mandate that Mr. Trump terminate military action against Iran unless Congress voted to authorize it.
The support of the two libertarian-leaning senators, who have long clamored for Congress to rein in presidential war powers, means that Democrats, who control 47 votes, are within striking distance of the majority needed to pass it. The support of the two libertarian-leaning senators, who have long clamored for Congress to rein in presidential war powers, means that Democrats, who control 47 votes, are in striking distance of the majority needed to pass it.
Two other Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana, said they were considering voting for Mr. Kaine’s resolution. But his version is a joint resolution that Mr. Trump could veto.Two other Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana, said they were considering voting for Mr. Kaine’s resolution. But his version is a joint resolution that Mr. Trump could veto.
Because the measures put forward by Mr. Kaine and the House are different, it is possible that Congress will have to vote on both versions.
Last year, in a rare invocation of the law, the Senate and the House both passed a joint resolution to force Mr. Trump to end support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. But Mr. Trump vetoed it, and an override vote in the Senate failed 53 to 45.