powers

Democratic lawmakers have largely condemned the strikes on Iran, emphasizing the lack of congressional approval.

Lawmakers from the Democratic Party have condemned the US attacks on Iran as a “dangerous” and “unnecessary” escalation, and called on the Senate to immediately vote on legislation that would block the president’s ability to take further military action without congressional approval.

Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees and the primary author of the war powers resolution, called President Donald Trump’s order to attack Iran a “colossal mistake”.

“The Senate should immediately return to session and vote on my War Powers Resolution to block the use of US forces in hostilities against Iran,” Kaine said in a statement on Saturday. “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.”

House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Kaine, saying that House Democrats are committed to forcing a floor vote on a measure to restrict Trump’s war powers regarding Iran.

“Donald Trump failed to seek Congressional authorisation prior to striking Iran. Instead, the President’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions,” he said in a statement. “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately.”

The push for a legislative check on Trump’s executive power has gained significant bipartisan momentum in the Senate, of which the Republican Party maintains a slim majority.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded on Saturday that Congress be briefed immediately about the Iran attacks, including an all-senators classified session and public testimony, criticising the administration for not providing details on the threat’s scope and immediacy.

“The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” he said in a statement.

Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the strikes in a statement posted on X as “a deeply consequential decision that risks pulling the United States into another broad conflict in the Middle East”.

He questioned the urgency and intelligence behind the attack, warning of repeating “mistakes of the past”, like the Iraq war.

“The American people have seen this playbook before – claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” he said.

Not just Democrats

While the push to curb executive military authority is largely driven by the Democratic caucus, a growing contingent of Republican lawmakers has signalled a rare break from the White House to join the effort.

Republican representative Thomas Massie, one of the most outspoken critics, described the strikes as “acts of war unauthorised by Congress”.

“I am opposed to this War. This is not America First,” he wrote on X.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Rand Paul, who also co-sponsored the war powers resolution, said his opposition to the war is based on constitutional principles.

“My oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war,” he said on X.

Feb. 28 (UPI) — While congressional reaction to the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran overnight was largely split along party lines, Democratic and some Republican lawmakers expressed concern that President Donald Trump ordered the strikes without first seeking congressional approval.

Lawmakers — who had already been pushing to limit Trump’s ability to carry out lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean — said they would renew their efforts to pass a war powers resolution.

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said he was “opposed to this war” in a post on X Saturday morning.

“When Congress reconvenes, I will work with [Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.] to force a congressional vote on war with Iran,” he wrote.

“The Constitution requires a vote, and your representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

NBC News reported that Massie and Khanna together wrote a war powers resolution ahead of the Iran attack. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to declare war on another country.

NPR reported that the White House notified the top eight leaders in Congress — known collectively as the Gang of Eight — shortly before the attack.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson showed his support for Trump’s actions to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

“Today, Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions,” Johnson said in a statement posted on X. “President Trump and the administration have made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions in response to the Iranian regime’s sustained nuclear ambitions and development, terrorism and the murder of Americans — and even their own people.”

Johnson said the Gang of Eight received a briefing earlier in the week about the potential military action.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, meanwhile, called on the Trump administration to brief the Senate on the threat. He said he had asked Secretary of State Mark Rubio to be transparent with Congress and the American people about the objectives of the strikes and the subsequent steps.

“The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the treat,” he said on X.

“Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination and strategic clarity.

“Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.”

Democrats are pushing for a vote next week on a resolution to curtail President Trump’s authority to conduct strikes in Iran, a move that would reassert Congress’ role in approving the use of military might.

The effort was already underway to force a vote on a war powers resolution, but it gained fresh momentum as the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran beginning early Saturday, an action that Trump referred to in a video shortly afterward as “war.” House Democratic leaders announced this week — before the strikes — that they would begin procedures to force a floor vote on a resolution for Iran.

The resolution directs Trump to terminate the use of armed forces against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Presidents of both parties have skirted around war powers resolutions in the past.

Passage is uncertain in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, with GOP members of both chambers expressing initial support for the bombing of Iran. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) praised the attacks Saturday and said to reporters that the administration “better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.”

But the effort for a war powers vote has gained the support of at least two House Republicans, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, making it possible for the measure to pass the House if enough Democrats support the measure and enough members show up for the final vote.

On the Senate side, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voted for an earlier war powers resolution, said he would “oppose another presidential war.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Iran “is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses” to allies in the region.

“However, absent exigent circumstances, the Trump administration must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war,” Jeffries’ statement said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a California Democrat who is co-sponsoring the resolution with Massie, urged lawmakers to reconvene in Washington on Monday to vote, calling the strikes the launch of “an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk.”

Massie on social media described the attack as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”

The resolution faced initial opposition from staunch pro-Israel House Democrats Jared Moskowitz of Florida and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the Senate should pass the resolution but didn’t outright oppose the strikes. He complained that the administration did not lay out its case to Congress or the public.

Trump would surely veto the resolution if passed, but substantial GOP votes for it could persuade him to limit the attacks on Iran. The Senate passed a procedural vote for a resolution against the strikes in January that culminated in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, after which the White House sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Capitol Hill to testify to members.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II has used that formal declaration, instead relying on less expansive authorization to deploy military force. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to slow the Vietnam War.

However, most presidents have sought some level of buy-in and approval from Congress, which approves the budget for the Pentagon.

“The Constitution is clear: The decision to take this nation to war rests with Congress, and launching large-scale military operations — particularly in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States — raises serious legal and constitutional concerns,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in a statement. “Congress must be fully briefed, and the administration must come forward with a clear legal justification.”

Other Senate Democrats, including Tim Kaine of Virginia and Andy Kim of New Jersey, have also urged their chamber to vote on a similar measure to put checks on Trump’s use of military force in Iran.

Rubio notified the so-called Gang of Eight — the top congressional leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees — of the strikes, the White House said.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, defended the strikes as “pivotal and necessary.”

“The President has stated the operation’s goals clearly: thwart permanently the ayatollahs’ desire to create a nuclear weapon, degrade their ballistic missile force and their production capacity, and destroy their naval and terrorism capabilities,” Wicker said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) noted in his statement: “This is not how a democracy goes to war.”

Wasson writes for Bloomberg.

Led by another standout performance from Jordan Chiles, the No. 5 UCLA women’s gymnastics team clinched the Big Ten regular-season championship for the second consecutive year Friday night by winning its Big Four meet at Pauley Pavilion.

Chiles, who had the top all-around score of 39.625, helped UCLA defeat No. 18 Iowa, No. 19 Ohio State and No. 25 Maryland with an overall score of 196.950. Her 9.950 on the vault in the final rotation sealed the win.

“The thing I’m taking away from today is that they really are fighters,” UCLA coach Janelle McDonald said. “They really didn’t give up [at] any moment, and they really were just resilient through it all.”

Ciena Alipio opened with a 9.850 on the uneven bars. Tiana Sumanasekera followed it with a 9.750 before Nola Matthews, Sydney Barros and Chiles each scored a 9.900.

Alipio was impressed by how well Matthews performed on short notice.

“She is one to always kind of just put her head down and work, and I’m really proud of her to see her step up today,” Alipio said.

On the balance beam, Katelyn Rosen started with a 9.750 and Barros posted a 9.850. Flexing UCLA’s depth, Mika Webster-Longin received a 9.825 in her top routine. Chiles had a 9.825. In an almost-perfect routine, Alipio posted a 9.950. The mark helped UCLA extend its lead.

It wasn’t all good news for the Bruins on the first rotation — Rosen sustained a foot injury and was held out for the remainder of the meet.

“I’m hoping it’s not no big deal, but we’ll get her checked out and just want to take the precaution and pull her out of those lineups,” McDonald said.

UCLA’s Jordan Chiles competes on the balance beam Friday during a Big Ten quad meet at Pauley Pavilion.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

Matthews started the floor exercise in Rosen’s place, opening with a 9.675. Alipio followed with a 9.825, and Sumanasekera and Ashlee Sullivan posted scores of 9.875 and 9.900, respectively. Needing a big performance to keep their lead, Chiles did not disappoint, scoring a 9.950.

Matthews demonstrated the level of depth UCLA has leaned on throughout the season.

“I definitely can say that is a huge leadership role as a freshman,” Chiles said. “Being able to step in at a time like that … we trusted the fact that she was gonna go out there and do her job.”

UCLA’s Katelyn Rosen competes on balance beam during the Bruins’ quad meet win at Pauley Pavilion on Friday.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

Going into the last rotation, UCLA led Ohio State by just .150. The Bruins needed a strong performance on vault to claim the conference title.

Sumanasekera set the tone with a 9.850. Madisyn Anyimi followed with a 9.775. After replacing Rosen, Webster-Longin earned a 9.800 in her season debut on vault, and Sullivan posted a 9.850 before Chiles clinched the win.

But the Bruins want more.

“This is a regular season, we still have Big Ten championship, we have regionals and we have NCAA,” Chiles said.

The quad-meet experience was a learning curve, Alipio said. UCLA had to perform at a high level through the final routine to secure victory.

UCLA gymnast Ashlee Sullivan performs her floor routine during the Bruins’ quad meet win Friday at Pauley Pavilion.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

McDonald said adjusting to tough competition levels up UCLA. The Bruins hope the experience will pay dividends for the young team in the postseason.

“We just kept reminding them to just take a breath, stay present and just really trust their training and their preparation that they’ve had leading into today,” McDonald said.

After donning hats and shirts that commemorated their championship, the Bruins celebrated on the floor with cheers and pictures. But come next week, the work begins again.

“We fought, for sure, until the end,” Alipio said. “But we also know we’re going into the gym on Monday, and we’re putting our heads down and working because this wasn’t our best, but we have more to show everybody.”

President Donald Trump has said he will raise global tariffs on imported goods to 15 percent after the United States Supreme Court struck down his previous trade measures.

The president announced his decision on Saturday, revising an earlier decision to impose a new 10 percent worldwide tariff after the Supreme Court ruling, which triggered immediate concern and responses from governments and markets.

The US top court’s ruling and Trump’s new tariffs have left countries grappling with the legal and economic fallout, raising questions about ongoing agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of past duties.

Governments are now evaluating how the new levy will affect key industries, investment plans, and trade negotiations, while analysts warn that uncertainty could persist until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.

South Korea

In South Korea, one of the US’s closest allies, the presidential office, Blue House, has released a statement, saying the government will review the trade deal and make decisions in the national interest, casting a question mark over the agreement signed in November last year, which lowered tariffs from 25 to 15 percent in exchange for $350bn in cash and investments from South Korea in the US.

“For major South Korean companies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, the Supreme Court ruling has been positive: Even if Trump introduces the new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122, they would still pay a lower rate,” said Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul.

“However, exporters of automobiles, more than half of which go to the US, remain subject to the 25 percent tariff, and steel exports are still hit with 50 percent duties under Section 232, which was not affected by the ruling.”

The South Korean government is expected to move cautiously. Exports account for 85 percent of South Korea’s gross domestic product, with the US as the second-largest market.

“Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardise major agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the US and other investments,” said Barton.

“While no definitive policy statement has been made yet, the Blue House has said that the trade deal will be under careful review and changes are likely.”

India

India has faced some of the highest US tariffs under Trump’s previous use of emergency trade powers. The president first imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and later added another 25 percent on the country’s purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total to 50 percent.

Earlier this month, the US and India reached a framework trade deal. Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and that US tariffs would be lowered to 18 percent for India’s top exports to the US, including clothing, pharmaceuticals, precious stones, and textiles. Meanwhile, India said it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of agricultural products.

According to political economist MK Venu, founding editor of Indian publication, The Wire, “Critics have argued New Delhi should have waited for the US Supreme Court decision before finalising the interim trade deal and even trade analysts previously connected with the government have maintained it would have been wiser to wait for the court verdict.”

Venu added that Trump was eager to finalise the trade deal, which includes a commitment to buy $500bn worth of new imports in defence, energy, and artificial intelligence (AI) from the US over the next five years.

While India, he said, welcomed the reduction of tariffs to 18 percent and the removal of penal duties on Russian imports, uncertainty remains over negotiations, as the Supreme Court ruling affects the legal basis of past tariffs.

“The Indian trade delegation is likely to wait for the final outcome of the Supreme Court verdict before proceeding with further negotiations, and countries around the world are expected to follow the court’s ruling rather than rush into trade agreements under legislation deemed unconstitutional,” he said.

China

China has reacted in a muted way to the Supreme Court ruling, with much of the country still on the Lunar New Year break.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Beijing, said, “The Chinese embassy in Washington has issued a blanket statement, noting that trade wars benefit nobody, and that the decision is likely to be broadly welcomed in China, which has long been a primary target of Trump’s tariff policies.”

Since last April, he said, China has faced multiple layers of tariffs, including 10 percent on chemicals used in fentanyl production exported to the US and 100 percent on electric vehicles.

Analysts have estimated that the overall tariff level, about 36 percent, could now fall to about 21 percent, providing some relief to an economy already under strain from the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged property market crisis, and declining exports.

Shipments from China to the US have reportedly fallen by roughly a fifth over the past year.

“Beijing has sought to offset losses in the US market by strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations and pursuing agreements with the European Union,” McBride said.

“The Supreme Court ruling may also create a more favourable atmosphere ahead of a planned state visit by Trump in early April, when he is expected to meet President Xi Jinping, potentially opening space for a reset in relations between the world’s two largest economies.”

Canada

Canada has welcomed the US Supreme Court’s decision but has pointed out that there are still some challenges ahead.

Regional leaders across the country, including those of British Columbia and Ontario, have signalled that the ruling is a positive step, according to Al Jazeera’s Ian Wood, reporting from Toronto.

However, Minister for Canada-US trade Dominic LeBlanc has said that significant work remains, as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, softwood lumber, and automobiles have remained in place.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has added that while optimism has grown, tension has persisted over what Donald Trump will do next, Wood said.

Mexico

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said her government would be carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision to assess its scope and the extent to which Mexico might be affected.

“The reality is that despite all we’ve heard over the last year about tariffs or the threat of tariffs, Mexico has actually ended up in quite a privileged, even competitive position, especially when compared to other countries,” said Al Jazeera’s Julia Gliano, reporting from Mexico City.

“We have to remember Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, and the two countries, along with Canada, share a vast trading agreement that shields most products from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced.

“There were also punitive tariffs related to fentanyl and illegal immigration along the US border, which Mexico had managed to suspend while negotiations continued on those matters. Now the tariffs that Mexico has been subjected to on steel, aluminium, and car parts are not affected by today’s decision.”

So, the government here in Mexico, she said, is now standing by to see what the Trump administration comes up with next as it reels from today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed “the existence of checks and balances in democracies” after the Supreme Court’s decision, telling reporters at an event in the capital that his country wanted to continue exporting “under the fairest rules possible and not be subject to unilateral decisions”.

The country’s finance minister, Nicolas Forissier, told UK newspaper The Financial Times that the EU has the tools to hit back at the US over its tariff policy, suggesting a more combative approach.

Germany

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he expected the tariff burden on his country’s economy to be lower after the US Supreme Court ruling, raising the prospect of German companies recouping billions in refunds.

Flagging an upcoming visit to Washington, Merz told Germany’s ARD broadcaster that he would present a “coordinated European position” on the matter, pointing out that tariff policy is determined by the European Union rather than individual member states.

Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said Europe was strengthening its independence and sovereignty, building new trade relationships worldwide and concluding free trade agreements.

Limits of Trump’s tariff powers

A senior legal scholar told Al Jazeera that the US Supreme Court ruling marks a key moment in the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs, focusing on constitutional limits rather than economics.

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law, told Al Jazeera that the court has for the first time confronted what he called Trump’s broader challenge to the rule of law.

“This is a ruling that is important in several respects. The first, more broadly, is that this is the first time in the last year that the Supreme Court has stepped in and attempted to do something about Donald Trump’s generalised attack on the rule of law in the United States.

“And make no mistake, although tariffs certainly are about economics, what Trump has done over the last year is essentially to defy the law. And the Supreme Court happily decided that they had had enough and that they would say no. So, they’re not ruling on economic policy. They made a decision that the president simply exceeded his constitutional authority.”

Foreign minister says regional powers have been ‘far more effective’ than European countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has derided the Munich Security Conference as a “circus”, accusing European powers of “paralysis and irrelevance” in efforts to revive nuclear negotiations with the United States.

Iranian officials were not invited to the annual security meeting in the German city.

“Sad to see the usually serious Munich Security Conference turned into the ‘Munich Circus’ when it comes to Iran,” Araghchi wrote on X on Sunday.

“The paralysis and irrelevance of the EU/E3 is displayed in the dynamics surrounding the current talks over Iran’s nuclear program. … Once a key interlocutor, Europe is now nowhere to be seen. Instead, our friends in the region [the Gulf] are far more effective and helpful than an empty-handed and peripheral E3.”

The E3 – which included France, the United Kingdom and Germany – were key players in the previous round of nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran. That process culminated in 2015 with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a landmark agreement aimed at limiting the scope of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

The US under the first administration of President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018 and ramped up sanctions on Iran. Since then, the process has largely stalled. Still, the E3 maintained a role as a go-between with Tehran and Washington.

But since negotiations resumed last year, Gulf countries, such as Oman and Qatar, have taken the lead in facilitating talks between the US and Iran.

Araghchi made the remarks before leaving Tehran to lead a diplomatic and technical delegation to Geneva for a new round of nuclear talks with the US. The talks follow last week’s indirect negotiations in Oman, which is mediating the process, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

During his visit, Araghchi is expected to meet his Swiss and Omani counterparts, as well as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, and other international officials.

Abas Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, said Araghchi’s comments “indicate a policy shift from the Iranian side that the E3 mechanism … is no longer a valid channel for resolution”.

“This nuclear mediation has moved from Europe to the region, and now the heavy lifting in diplomacy is done by regional players,” he said.

On Tuesday, Oman is to host talks between the US and Iran in Geneva after previous indirect negotiations in Muscat on February 6. Those talks were attended by US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner.

US and Iranian officials previously held several rounds of talks in the Omani capital to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme last year. But that process was halted as Israel launched a 12-day war with Iran in June, which the US briefly joined by bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities.

The new rounds of negotiations come as tensions in the region remain high, with Trump moving more US military assets to the Middle East. On Friday, the US president said he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the region while openly talking about a change in Iran’s government.

Despite the new push for diplomacy, the two sides have maintained their positions. Iran has shown flexibility in discussing its nuclear programme, but the US wants to widen the talks to include Iran’s ballistic missiles and its support for regional armed groups – two issues that Tehran says are nonnegotiable.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke out against intervention by ‘alien Westerners’ during a rally to mark the anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Celebrations have been taking place after weeks of US threats of military action.

The rules will make it easier for Israeli settlers to buy land in the occupied West Bank and give Israeli officials more powers to enforce its laws on Palestinians in the area.