SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rand paul
Caving to Trump 'Temper Tantrum,' Two Republicans Flip to Block Iran War Powers Resolution
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection last month and said he would not be "bullied," switched his vote to no after the president berated him during a closed-door lunch hours earlier.
Jun 25, 2026
Two Senate Republicans who supported a previous resolution calling for an end to the US war on Iran changed their votes late Wednesday after President Donald Trump publicly and privately berated GOP lawmakers, calling them "losers" who provided "aid and comfort to the enemy."
In Wednesday's procedural vote, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)—who reportedly got into a shouting match with Trump over the Iran war during a closed-door lunch hours earlier—sided with virtually every other Republican in opposing the war powers resolution, just a day after he supported a separate, symbolic resolution calling for the removal of US forces from the conflict. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also switched, changing his vote to "present" at the urging of the president.
Senate Republicans forced late Wednesday's vote in a clear effort to placate Trump, who fumed at "Republican losers" who backed the symbolic war powers resolution that passed the upper chamber earlier this week. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the lead sponsor of the resolution that Republicans blocked on Wednesday, said the vote was held to "appease [Trump's] temper tantrum."
"After both Republican-majority Houses took the historic step of voting that additional war against Iran is illegal without congressional authorization, President Trump came to the Capitol and tried to browbeat Republican senators for upholding their oaths of office," said Kaine. Wednesday's vote, the senator added, "does not undo the expressed position of Congress that further war against Iran is illegal unless Congress votes for it."
Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to resume attacks on Iran if negotiations collapse, celebrated Wednesday's vote in a late-night post on his social media platform, thanking Senate GOP leaders and highlighting that Cassidy and Paul changed their votes.
Cassidy, who lost reelection last month and insisted hours before the vote that he would not "be bullied" by the administration, subsequently thanked the White House for giving him a "thorough briefing" on Iran to "address many of my concerns." Trump reportedly called Cassidy a "lunatic" during Wednesday's private lunch.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Wednesday's vote came amid tenuous negotiations between the US and Iran on a diplomatic resolution to end the illegal war that Trump launched in late February, killing thousands of Iranians, throwing the global economy into chaos, and driving up prices at home.
On Wednesday, prior to the Senate war powers vote, the White House asked Congress to approve an $87.6 billion supplemental funding package that includes nearly $70 billion for military programs to address "operational costs incurred" during the war on Iran.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
"Instead, Trump wants taxpayers to continue footing the bill for his reckless war in Iran, which has sent the cost of gas and everyday goods skyrocketing, put our brave men and women in uniform at risk, and left the region no safer than before," Boyle added.
Senate Democrats' top appropriator, Patty Murray of Washington, said she would not "rubberstamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
“This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support," said Murray.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Schumer Vows to Keep Forcing Iran War Powers Votes as Senators Sink Another Resolution
"If Donald Trump won’t dig us out of this hole, Congress must step into the breach and exercise its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace," the minority leader said.
Apr 22, 2026
For the fifth time since President Donald Trump launched the Iran War in February, US senators on Wednesday voted down a resolution that would have blocked Trump from continuing his joint assault with Israel on the Mideast nation.
Upper chamber lawmakers voted 51-46 against SJ Res. 114, Sen. Tammy Baldwin's (D-Wis.) war powers resolution. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul joined Democrats in voting for the resolution, while John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to oppose it. Three senators—Chuck Grassley (R-Neb.), Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.)—did not vote.
Wednesday's vote marked the fifth time that an Iran war powers resolution has failed to pass the Senate this year. On March 4, Fetterman helped upper chamber Republicans sink one such measure introduced by Paul and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Two weeks later, senators came within three votes of passing a similar resolution introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a rejection repeated days later in a follow-up vote. Last week, Fetterman again crossed the aisle to help defeat a fourth resolution introduced by disabled combat veteran Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
In remarks delivered on the Senate floor before Wednesday's vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: "Every day, we hear new promises from the Trump administration that victory has been achieved, that peace is at hand, that costs are starting to come down. And every day, we see the opposite. Trump can talk all he wants, but nothing will change until he realizes that this war needs to end."
Donald Trump has been offering empty promises to end his war for weeks.At 5 PM, Senate Democrats will offer his Senate Republican puppets a FIFTH chance to do just that with a vote on our War Powers Resolution.
[image or embed]
— Chuck Schumer (@schumer.senate.gov) April 22, 2026 at 1:48 PM
"And if Donald Trump won’t dig us out of this hole, Congress must step into the breach and exercise its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace," Schumer added. "Democrats will continue to force votes on our resolutions every week until Senate Republicans see reason."
On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a fresh Iran war powers resolution, reportedly in coordination with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) previously introduced the first of three failed Iran war powers resolutions in the lower chamber.
Responding to Wednesday's vote, Fetterman told Fox News host Sean Hannity that "Iran must be so excited by the American media and the Democratic Party," adding that Iranian leaders must be thinking, "as long as we can hang on... more and more people [will] continue to vote against the Trump administration."
As US and Israeli attacks on Iran—which have left more than 30,000 people dead or wounded, according to Iranian and international officials—are paused for a truce extension pending the outcome of negotiations, the Trump administration announced Wednesday that US Navy Secretary John Phelan is resigning "effective immediately." The administration gave no reason for the move.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Blasts Mullin’s Self-Enrichment as Fetterman Joins GOP to Advance Trump DHS Pick
"Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
Mar 19, 2026
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday slammed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for voting to advance the nomination of Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to be the next US homeland security secretary.
Shortly after the committee delivered an 8-to-7 vote to advance Mullin's (R-Okla.) nomination out of committee, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert described the move as "simply inappropriate."
"It is inappropriate because of his self-enrichment," Gilbert said. "Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mullin has grown significantly wealthier throughout his tenure first as a US congressman then as a US senator, in part because he is "one of the most prolific stock buyers in Congress."
According to financial disclosure forms cited by the Times, Mullin's net worth in 2024 was between $29 million and $97 million, a massive jump from the estimated net worth of $2.8 million to $9 million he reported in 2012.
In addition to citing Mullin's self-enrichment during his political career, Gilbert decried the senator's past statements defending actions taken by federal immigration enforcement officials, including the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
"It is inappropriate because Mullin has consistently defended ICE agents involved in fatal shootings," said Gilbert, "and justified the use of lethal force in enforcement operations, rather than calling for accountability or reform of use-of-force policies. It is inappropriate because he treats protest against ICE operations as a prosecutable offense rather than a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights and an expression of community concern."
While Mullin on Wednesday walked back his past attack on Pretty as "deranged," he stood by his claim that the shooting of Good was entirely justified.
Mullin's nomination advanced to the Senate floor after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke with his party, canceling out the "no" vote on the committee delivered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who got into an angry spat with Mullin on Wednesday over past comments the Oklahoma Republican made justifying a 2017 assault on his colleague from Kentucky.
In a social media post defending his vote to advance Mullin, Fetterman argued that "we need a leader" at the US Department of Homeland Security and said his vote in favor of the nomination was "rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blood Is On Their Hands': Fetterman and Senate GOP Block War Powers Resolution on Iran
The Pennsylvania Democrat "and his GOP colleagues now share ownership of Trump's stupid, unpopular, unjustified, and already tragic war—and the fallout," said Indivisible.
Mar 04, 2026
Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted with nearly every Senate Republican on Wednesday to block a war powers resolution intended to halt President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war on Iran.
Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored S.J.Res.104 with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), joined Democrats for the 47-53 vote on the motion to discharge the measure, which would direct the removal of US armed forces from hostilities with Iran.
"This is shameful," declared the anti-war group CodePink, calling out the senators who voted to let the war continue. "The blood is on their hands."
The grassroots group Indivisible similarly said that Fetterman "and his GOP colleagues now share ownership of Trump's stupid, unpopular, unjustified, and already tragic war—and the fallout."
So far, over 1,000 people have been killed in Iran—including around 175 in an attack on a girls' elementary school in Minab—according to the Iranian government, and six US service members are dead.
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at the group Demand Progress, said in a statement that "the American people will remember who voted to continue an illegal, unnecessary war. Every senator who voted against the war powers resolution also voted against the wishes of the American people and against the safety of the service members they are sworn to protect."
"The stakes are clear, and there is no more time for political games," Kharrazian continued. "We cannot accept anything except full opposition to Trump's war. This means no votes to authorize it for any period of time and no votes for spending a single penny on it."
The vote came after Senate Democrats left a Tuesday night classified briefing even more concerned that the US-Israeli war on Iran will involve a ground invasion and drag on "forever." The Pentagon is reportedly planning to seek around $50 billion to fund the war, which has not been authorized by Congress and has been widely condemned as illegal under international law.
In the lead-up to the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had urged Democrats and Republicans alike to "stand with the American people who are tired of war in the Middle East" and "act to stop Trump’s belligerence" by voting "yes."
Pointing to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Wednesday morning press conference, during which he suggested the war could last at least eight weeks, Schumer said that "one thing is crystal clear: America is at war with no plan, no strategy."
Schumer—who has faced criticism for not leading a strong enough opposition to Trump in general—continued:
In his own words, Hegseth said, "We are just getting started." Hegseth says, "We are accelerating, not decelerating." And in the wake of six brave Americans who died in uniform, Trump simply says: "There will likely be more. That's the way it is." This, my colleagues, is madness. Americans spent the last two decades fighting and dying in the Middle East. Parents watched their kids shipped off to foreign lands.
So many lives lost. So many billions wasted. So much suffering and anguish that scarred an entire generation. Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? Enough is enough. The American people deserve a say. And that is what our resolution is about.
As the voting got underway, Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, highlighted on social media that "Democrats are at their desks, while the Republican side is empty. The message is unmistakable. For Democrats this is a solemn moment. For Republicans it's just another vote."
The Senate blocked Kaine and Paul's measure from advancing to a final vote as the US House of Representatives on Wednesday debated H.Con.Res.38, a war powers resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
"The Constitution entrusts Congress to declare war—not the president," noted Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One. "Today's Senate vote on Sens. Tim Kaine's and Rand Paul's war powers resolution is the first step in setting a precedent to reclaim war powers from the president. We thank Kaine and Paul for bringing this resolution to the floor in a bipartisan manner and Paul for his bravery in standing up and exercising Congress' Article I responsibilities."
"War puts the lives of American military personnel at risk, and the potential economic fallout is massive. The disruption of energy supply chains risks raising the price of everything from fuel to food for everyday Americans. This is why the representatives of we the people must make this decision," he continued. "We hope that tomorrow, the House will follow the Senate's lead and vote on a war powers resolution. Even if the House votes down a war powers resolution like the Senate, this will be an important step in reclaiming our experiment in self-government that our founders intended."
Promoting the We the People Playbook crafted by his and other groups, Fraser stressed that "it is clear that more must be done to ensure that Congress plays its constitutional role. In two months, President Trump has started military conflicts in Iran and Venezuela without congressional approval, and it seems likely he will continue this course unless Congress steps up and reasserts its power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pretty Much Put Us Out of Business': Uproar After Shutdown Bill Targets Hemp Industry
"Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp," warned one critic.
Nov 13, 2025
Advocates for hemp on Wednesday decried a provision of the Republican government funding law signed by President Donald Trump that tightens restrictions on the versatile plant—a move critics say will devastate a $30 billion industry.
The new restrictions set a stricter limit on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive chemical in cannabis—in order to close a loophole that allowed for the sale of unregulated food and beverages containing intoxicating hemp-derived compounds.
Twenty-two Democratic senators—including advocates for legal recreational or medical marijuana—joined almost all Republicans in voting against an amendment introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to strip out the restrictions from the final bill. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only other Republican to back Paul's effort.
"Our industry is being used as a pawn as leaders work to reopen the government," Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the US Hemp Roundtable, an industry group, warned ahead of the vote. "Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp."
Hemp—which is used in a wide range of products from clothing to construction materials to fuel, food, and biodegradable plastics—was legalized under the 2018 farm bill signed by President Donald Trump during his first term.
But lawmakers including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—who backed the 2018 legislation—argued that cannabis companies are exploiting a loophole in the farm bill to legally manufacture products with enough THC to get consumers high.
Paul, however, ripped the provision, arguing in a Thursday Courier Journal opinion piece that it "destroys the livelihood of hemp farmers."
"This could not come at a worse time for our farmers," Paul wrote. "Costs have increased while prices for crops have declined. Farm bankruptcies are rising."
"For many farmers, planting hemp offered them a lifeline," he continued. "Hemp can be used for textiles, rope, insulation, composite wood, paper, grain, and in CBD products, and growing hemp helped farmers to mitigate the loses they’ve endured during this season of hardship."
Paul noted that "the provision that was inserted into the government funding bill makes illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container."
"That would be nearly 100% of hemp products currently sold," he said. "This is so low that it takes away any of the benefit of the current products intended to manage pain or other conditions."
Charles and Linda Gill have grown hemp on their family farm in Bowdoinham, Maine since the plant was legalized in 2018.
“We are not in the business of these intoxicating hemp products on the market, which are the ones that are screwing it up for everybody,” Charles Gill told Maine Morning Star's Emma Davis on Wednesday. “They’re abusing the system.”
“All our current products would be banned,” Gill said of the new restrictions. “It would pretty much put us out of business.”
Hemp defenders vowed to contest the new law.
"The fight isn't over," Hemp Industry & Farmers of America executive director Brian Swensen said on X after the law's passage.
"In 2018, President Trump and Congress legalized hemp, delivering more jobs and opportunities to American farmers and small businesses," Swensen said, adding that the restrictions "will devastate American farmers, business owners, veterans, and seniors."
"The hemp ban will also open up dangerous black markets for hemp and allow China to take over the entire hemp market," he added, claiming "it kills over 325,000 American jobs and destroys the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Aim to Stop Trump 'From Dragging This Country Into War' With Venezuela
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
Nov 06, 2025
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Launch Bipartisan Bid to Block Trump War on Venezuela
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela," said Sen. Adam Schiff. "And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war."
Oct 17, 2025
With President Donald Trump floating potential military action within Venezuela and authorizing operations by the Central Intelligence Agency after launching several deadly strikes on boats near the South American country, three lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Friday said they would force a new vote on blocking the White House from carrying out an attack there.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) last week introduced a measure to rein in Trump's bombing of boats in the Caribbean, which the White House has claimed are being used to traffic drugs into the US and present an imminent threat.
The measure failed, with one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) joining most of the GOP in opposing it and two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), supporting it.
Kaine and Schiff on Friday were reportedly hoping that a new bipartisan measure, introduced with Paul, would garner more support from the Republicans.
They said they would force a vote on a war powers resolution to block the use of force by US troops "within or against" Venezuela unless it was "explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force."
The 1973 War Powers Act requires Congress to consider and vote on resolutions regarding a president's power to enter an armed conflict without congressional authorization.
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America," said Schiff.
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere."
The lawmakers announced the resolution as it was reported that two survivors of the military's most recent drone strike on a boat have been detained by US forces, with legal experts questioning whether they are prisoners or war or criminal suspects.
The White House has insisted it is acting within its rights to defend US security by striking boats it believes are carrying drugs—even as details have emerged calling into doubt the allegations that the vessels pose a threat.
Venezuela is not a significant source of drugs that are trafficked into the US—a fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed when a reporter brought it up soon after the military began bombing boats, at least six of which have been struck so far. At least 27 people have been killed, and the grieving family of one victim spoke out Thursday and said they had not been involved in drug trafficking.
Even if the vessels were carrying illegal substances, legal experts and critics in Congress have stressed in recent weeks that they should be dealt with, as in the past, by federal law enforcement agencies, as Congress has not authorized military action against Venezuela or drug cartels.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote," said Paul. "We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war."
Kaine told reporters on Thursday the Congress' knowledge of legal rationale for the boat strikes amounts to “a complete black hole."
Meanwhile, Trump has suggested this week he could further escalate attacks on Venezuela, saying the Caribbean Sea is "very well under control"—even though Vice President JD Vance has joked that the US could accidentally strike fishing boats in its operations there.
"We are certainly looking at land now," Trump said Wednesday.
Kaine said he was "extremely troubled that the Trump administration is considering launching illegal military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” said Kaine. “If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an authorization for use of military force."
"I urge every senator to join us in stopping this administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict," said the senator.
The New York Times reported that Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) could potentially join the effort to pass the war powers resolution after voting against last week's measure, which he said was too broad.
"I am highly concerned," Young said after the vote last week, "about the legality of recent strikes in the Caribbean and the trajectory of military operations without congressional approval or debate and the support of the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fetterman Joins GOP to Kill War Powers Resolution Against Trump's Extrajudicial Venezuela Bombings
Sen. Rand Paul, one of just two Republicans to vote for the resolution, said he thinks Trump's illegal strikes on boats and threats to attack Venezuela "might lead to regime change."
Oct 09, 2025
With Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joining Republicans in opposing a measure to rein in President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally bomb ships in the Caribbean Sea, the US Senate narrowly failed to advance a war powers resolution Wednesday.
Since the beginning of September, Trump has conducted four strikes on vessels off the coast of Venezuela which the administration has alleged, with little evidence, are carrying "narco-terrorists" spiriting illegal drugs to the United States.
Trump has also deployed thousands of sailors and marines to the Venezuelan coast and is reportedly considering strikes on the Venezuelan mainland, which has stoked fears within the country and across Latin America of another regime-change war.
In a quote to Responsible Statecraft, John Ramming Chappell, an advocacy and legal fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, said that even if the ships attacked by Trump do contain drug-runners, the strikes carried out by Trump have been "summary executions and extrajudicial killings" that are "manifestly illegal under both US and international law."
But by a 51-48 vote, largely along party lines, the Senate opted not to discharge a resolution introduced by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) from the Foreign Relations Committee that would have halted Trump's ability to carry out more strikes without congressional approval.
"The president has used our military to strike unknown targets on at least four occasions, and he is promising more," Schiff said in his speech introducing the resolution on the Senate floor. "With at least 21 people dead, and more killing on the way, with the president telling us that strikes on land-based targets may be next, we ask you to join us and reassert Congress' vital control over the war power."
Kaine added: "Americans want fewer wars—not more—and our Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the power to declare one. Yet President Trump has repeatedly launched illegal military strikes in the Caribbean and has refused to provide Congress with basic information about who was killed, why the strikes were necessary, and why a standard interdiction operation wasn't conducted."
Two Republican senators, Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), joined Democrats in voting to advance the resolution.
Paul, a libertarian who is typically more skeptical of foreign interventions than others in the GOP, has been an outspoken critic of Trump's assertion of unchecked authority to bomb ships and the lack of evidence provided.
He previously sparred with Vice President JD Vance online after Vance said, "I don't give a shit" that striking unarmed civilians without due process is a "war crime" under international law.
On the Senate floor, Paul said: "Perhaps those in charge of deciding whom to kill might let us know their names, present proof of their guilt, show evidence of their crimes... Is it too much to ask to know the names of those we kill before we kill them?"
Paul previously said in an interview with Bloomberg: "I think it might lead to regime change. And some of the more skeptical among us think that maybe this is a provocation to lead to real regime change, a provocation to get the Venezuelans to react so we can then insert the military."
Murkowski added: "We all want to get rid of the drugs in this country, absolutely. But the approach that the administration is taking is new, some would say novel, and I think we have a role here."
Even with two Republican defectors, it was not enough for the resolution to advance, especially with an assist from Fetterman (Pa.), the Democratic Party's leading war hawk, who joined Republicans in voting the motion down.
It's the second time in a matter of months that he's voted against imposing a congressional check on Trump's ability to carry out acts of war. In June, he was also the lone Democrat to vote against a Senate resolution to require congressional approval for future strikes against Iran, even as the president made regime change threats.
Nick Field, a correspondent for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, noted that "voting against a war powers resolution seeking to curb Trump's executive powers" was "not how John Fetterman campaigned in 2022, 2018, or 2016," when he acted as a strident opponent of everything Trump stood for.
Fetterman has not publicly commented on his decision to vote against the resolution. His office did not respond to a request for comment from Common Dreams.
Despite the vote's failure, Schiff said it likely will not be the last attempt to limit Trump's war-making authority. Similar resolutions were introduced late last month in the House of Representatives by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jason Crow (D-Col.).
"Sadly, as these strikes get worse, support will only grow for another War Powers Resolution to stop them," Schiff said. "Let's hope by then we are not in a full-fledged war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Another 'Extrajudicial Execution' as US Bombs Second Alleged Venezuelan Drug Boat
"There is no legal justification for this military strike," said one Amnesty International campaigner. "The US must be held accountable."
Sep 15, 2025
President Donald Trump said Monday that the US carried out a fresh strike on what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one human rights campaigner called another "extrajudicial execution."
"This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the [US Southern Command] area of responsibility," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US."
"These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to US National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital US Interests," the Republican president continued. "The Strike resulted in three male terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this Strike."
"BE WARNED—IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!" Trump added. "The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
US President Trump just announced that a second drug smuggling boat from Venezuela was hit by a US airstrike in the Caribbean, killing 3 people on board the boat.#Venezuela pic.twitter.com/dO34gYr9GZ
— CNW (@ConflictsW) September 15, 2025
Responding to arguments by legal experts and Venezuelan officials that the September 2 strike was illegal, Trump said Sunday that "what's illegal are the drugs that were on the boat... and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."
Only 62 million people died in the entire world of all causes last year, making Trump's claim impossibly false.
Monday's attack followed the September 2 bombing of a vessel allegedly transporting cocaine off the Venezuelan coast, a strike that killed 11 people. Venezuelan officials say none of the 11 men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, as claimed by Trump.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last month, the president reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat drug cartels abroad, sparking fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US attacks, invasions, occupations, and other interventions since the issuance of the dubious Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported Monday that the Trump administration's recently rebranded Department of War "is thwarting congressional oversight" of the September 2 attack.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in response to Turse's reporting. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings—and teased more to come.”
Common Dreams reported last week that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a war powers resolution seeking to restrain Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered "no legitimate justification" for the first boat strike.
It's not just congressional Democrats who have decried Trump's September 2 attack. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that "the recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war, and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement."
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul later added.
Paul also mirrored Democratic lawmakers' questioning of Trump's narrative that the boat bombed on September 2 was heading to the United States.
Echoing congressional critics, Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International's Security With Human Rights program, said of Monday's attack, "Today, President Trump claimed his administration carried out another lethal strike against a boat in the Caribbean."
"This is an extrajudicial execution, which is murder," Eviatar added. "There is no legal justification for this military strike. The US must be held accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Considering a Strike on Venezuela, Military Sources Say
The US is considering "shooting down Venezuelan military aircraft" or "bombing Venezuelan military airfield," according to a report from independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
Sep 10, 2025
US President Donald Trump's administration is considering launching military strikes on Venezuela, according to new reporting from independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
Military sources on Tuesday told Klippenstein that the Trump administration is mulling an attack against Venezuela unless it cracks down on drug cartels that it claims are shipping fentanyl into the United States.
Contrary to the administration's claims, according to the US Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies, Venezuela plays virtually no role in fentanyl manufacturing and trafficking.
Klippenstein's sources said the attack was likely to involve "shooting down Venezuelan military aircraft or by bombing Venezuelan military airfield," and that the US Air Force has been rehearsing for such a mission in recent weeks.
Such an attack would mark a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's hostilities toward Venezuela, which escalated last week when the administration bombed a boat off the Venezuelan coast that it alleged was carrying drug traffickers.
Many legal experts were quick to condemn the strike as a violation of maritime law. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was among those who condemned the military attack on suspected drug smugglers without due process.
A leaked Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by Klippenstein gives clues as to why the administration is taking an aggressive military posture toward Venezuela.
Specifically, writes Klippenstein, the memo gives insight into the administration's view that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro is actually in charge of the Tren de Aragua cartel and is giving it orders to poison American citizens by getting them addicted to drugs.
However, Klippenstein cautions that this view of Maduro as the commander of an international drug cartel is not backed up by US intelligence agencies.
"A declassified assessment prepared by the National Intelligence Council concluded in April that the Maduro regime 'probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TdA and is not directing TdA operations in the United States,'" he noted.
Klippenstein closed his report by likening the situation to the buildup to the 2003 Iraq War, but with fentanyl taking the place of "weapons of mass destruction" as the purported casus belli.
"Similar to the 'debate' about Saddam's WMD, Democrats in Congress are busy discussing whether the strike on a small drug boat was legal and complaining that they weren't briefed on the operation," he wrote. "The fundamental question—is there any evidence that the Venezuela government is directing fentanyl into the U.S.?—is hardly ever asked. And most importantly, would bombing Venezuela do anything to reduce the flow of drugs into the U.S.?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy