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
'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
Most Popular