House votes to curb Trump's powers to take military action against Iran Resolution in wake of Suleimani killing is non-binding, but reignites debate over who has power to declare war

Nancy Pelosi called the killing of the Iranian general ‘provocative and disproportionate’. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The US House of Representatives has approved a resolution asserting that Donald Trump must seek approval from Congress before engaging in further military action against Iran, reigniting a debate over who has the power to declare war.

The war powers resolution is not binding on the president and would not require his signature. But the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, nonetheless insisted it “has real teeth” because “it is a statement of the Congress of the United States”.

The measure will “protect American lives and values” by limiting Trump’s military actions, Pelosi said. “The administration must de-escalate and must prevent further violence.”

The Democratic-controlled House passed the measure on Thursday by a vote of 224-194 with just three Republicans voting in support. Eight Democrats opposed the measure.

The House resolution came about after Trump chose to take unilateral action last week to assassinate the senior Iranian general Qassem Suleimani without consulting or even notifying Congress.

To stop the president from taking further action against Iran without consulting them, House Democrats have invoked the War Powers Act of 1973, which draws out the parameters of presidential and congressional war powers. With the passage of an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001 to fight terrorism, and another AUMF in 2002 for the war in Iraq, Congress’ war powers have diminished since 9/11. Now many lawmakers – especially Democrats – are discussing how to rebalance such powers.

Iran crisis pushes foreign policy to the fore in Democratic primary

 

Read more

In the Senate, a similar war powers proposal by the Democrat Tim Kaine faces much slimmer odds of passing, though Republican Senator Todd Young, an ex-marine who represents Indiana, and two other Republicans indicated yesterday they would back the plan.

Pelosi, in announcing the House vote, called the killing of Suleimani “provocative and disproportionate”.

Republicans denounced the measure, with the Louisiana congressman Steve Scalise calling it little more than “a press release designed to attack President Trump”, while the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, called it a “meaningless vote”.

The House vote came a day after the Trump administration briefed lawmakers on its actions in Iran. Democrats and several Republicans called the briefings inadequate, adding that officials did not provide enough details about why the attack was justified.

The vice-president, Mike Pence, said Thursday that Suleimani “was traveling the region making plans to bring an attack against American personnel and American forces”. He said it was not possible to share full details of the intelligence with lawmakers.

“When it comes to intelligence we have to protect sources and methods, there’s only a certain amount we can share with every member of Congress,” Pence said on ABC’s Good Morning America. “But those of us who have seen all the evidence know that there was a compelling case of imminent threat against American personnel.”

Members of Congress have a constitutional responsibility to uphold in authorizing use of military force, Slotkin said, adding, “We are owed concrete, specific details on strategy.”

Trump did not consult with congressional leaders ahead of the attack that killed the Iranian general and afterward sent Congress a notification explaining the rationale, but kept it classified.

Congress has allowed its war powers role to erode since the passage of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001 to fight terrorism after the 9/11 attacks, and passage of another AUMF for the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Fallout from those votes deeply divided Congress and the nation, with many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, now saying they were mistakes. Yet Congress has been paralyzed on the question of whether to repeal or change those authorities.

As 2020 begins…

… we’re asking readers, like you, to make a new year contribution in support of the Guardian’s open, independent journalism. This has been a turbulent decade across the world – protest, populism, mass migration and the escalating climate crisis. The Guardian has been in every corner of the globe, reporting with tenacity, rigour and authority on the most critical events of our lifetimes. At a time when factual information is both scarcer and more essential than ever, we believe that each of us deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

More people than ever before are reading and supporting our journalism, in more than 180 countries around the world. And this is only possible because we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.

None of this would have been attainable without our readers’ generosity – your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.

The Guardian