Consider This from NPR - Why Tim Kaine is pursuing a war powers resolution – again

Episode Date: February 26, 2026

With the U.S. military amassing in the Middle East ahead of possible strikes in Iran, a Democratic lawmaker explains his effort to limit the president.The United States Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to declare war.That hasn’t stopped plenty of presidents from commanding military combat.It didn’t stop President Trump from ordering airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last year – and building up the U.S. military in the Middle East while he mulls further action this year.So far in this Trump administration, efforts to reclaim that Congressional authority have failed.Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, explains why he is still pursuing a war powers resolution.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Alejandra Marquez Janse and Karen Zamora, with audio engineering by Ted Mebane. It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon and Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

So could the third time be the charm? The United States and Iran are in Geneva for, yes, a third round of nuclear talks which could end in a deal or with violence. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words. We will never have a nuclear weapon. That's President Trump during Tuesday's State of the Union address. My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain. I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of.

terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. I mean, I'm totally in favor of regime change, but I think you can't just announce it in one speech and then expect that everybody will line up behind you. I think this is a political mistake he may be about to make, but it's typical of the way he proceeds. This is John Bolton, who is now a vocal critic of President Trump. He once served as national security advisor during Trump's first term. He's also a former UN ambassador. And he told NPR that he didn't think Trump made a case for war to the American people because he thinks Trump is not even sure he wants war. I don't think Trump has necessarily made up his mind either what his

objective is in a possible use of military force or what the quantum of that force would be. Meanwhile, not everyone in Congress is okay with the idea that President Trump could proceed with military action against Iran without first seeking the sign-off of lawmakers. Consider this. Members of Congress have filed war powers resolutions in both the House and Senate to restrict President Trump from attacking Iran without congressional approval. We speak with one of the lawmakers pushing the resolutions, Democratic Senator Tim Kane of Virginia. From NPR, I'm Elsa Chang. It's Consider This from NPR.

It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, where the U.S. Constitution, empowers Congress, not the president, to declare war. Of course, anyone versed in recent U.S. history will know that U.S. presidents have authorized plenty of military action without Congress first signing off. One timely example, last year the U.S. struck three nuclear sites in Iran joining Israel in its fight against the country. Right now, the U.S. has massively built up military forces in the Middle East, and this week it's conducting diplomatic talks with Iran. members of Congress are trying to prevent President Trump from acting without congressional approval. And one of them is Democratic Senator Tim Cain of Virginia. Welcome back.

Elsa, great to be with you, thanks. Great to have you. So when do you expect to vote on this resolution? Elsa, it will happen early next week. Even as I sit here talking to you, it's being negotiated, but it will be in the first couple of days of next week when we're back in session Monday. Okay. But I have to ask because previous votes on war powers resolutions like over-evales. Venezuela over last year strikes on Iran, they have failed. Almost all Republicans have voted against them.

So why does this moment feel any different to you? Well, first, whether they succeed or fail, we shouldn't be at war without a vote. And so members of Congress should be held accountable. Secondly, we learn, and particularly in the Venezuela vote, in the Senate, we actually got enough votes, Democrat, plus some Republicans initially. And then a few Republicans got convinced to change their minds and some subsequent votes. But it changed the president's behavior. After the first vote within a few hours, he canceled a second strike on Venezuela. And he also agreed finally to have a public hearing to send Secretary Rubio up to discuss what, in fact, was the mission, what were the goals, what would success look like. And so I very much learned from that effort, even though we ultimately were not

successful, that forcing a vote and a debate on these matters brings it more to the public's attention where the public can decide whether emissions in the national interest and it can even change the behavior of the administration. But I want to share a statement from a fellow Democrat. This is Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who's opposed to an equivalent war powers resolution in the House. And he writes, quote, this resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks, signaling weakness at a dangerous moment. What do you say to your colleague there about that? I'm on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee and I'm in the classified facility all the time hearing about risks. And I hear nothing whatsoever about any risks right now

that Iran poses the United States that are at a sufficient level that we should allow a president to take our sons and daughters into war without a debate by Congress. Well, during the state of the Union address, President Trump said that Iran is developing missiles that may soon be able to reached the U.S. and that Iran is restarting its nuclear program. How much has the Trump administration shared evidence of those claims with lawmakers like you? Well, let's take both. So how about the nuclear program? First, we had controlled Iran's nuclear program by a diplomatic deal that we entered into with our allies, with adversaries like China and Russia and Iran. President Trump tore up the deal. President Trump, after a 12-day bombing campaign by Israel over the

summer, used U.S. assets to bomb Iranian nuclear sites and claimed that the Iranian nuclear program was obliterated. That was just six months ago. So now all of a sudden, their nuclear program poses such a threat that we can't even have a debate and vote in Congress? It makes no sense. With respect to the missiles, they are developing missiles, which they may use at some time against the United States. There's so many hypotheticals in there. And the overmatch we have is such that Iran knows this, if they were to use a missile against the United States, which they haven't, it would be a catastrophe for them. Okay, but given what you know now about the situation in Iran and whatever threat they do or might pose to the U.S. militarily, what would you

want to see the U.S. military do at this point? Is there anything justifiable in your mind right now? I would say provide defense support to nations in the region. But we shouldn't commit our own children to yet another war in the Middle East when 25 years of war in the Middle East has produced so little for this country and so little for the region. Okay. As we mentioned, there is a U.S. delegation in Geneva right now in talks with Iran. What about concerns that this debate in Congress about limiting presidential power? What about concerns that that that might reduce the U.S.'s leverage in those diplomatic talks? Could they? Well, you know, a war is a good idea or a bad idea. And if it's a bad idea, I don't think you should bluff it to try to, you know, get the upper hand in a negotiation. It's a bad idea, in this case, in my view. But the fact of the discussions, even today is one of the reasons why, even though my resolution was ripe for voting this week,

we decided a few days out in the future likely next week would be preferable. Let that negotiation proceed. Let's do all we can to do what we did 10 years. years ago and find a diplomatic deal to avoid the need for war. You oppose the Trump administration's claiming of powers that you believe belong to Congress constitutionally. You also oppose war, war with Iran, and the repression by the regime in Iran. So then what is your larger preferred path forward here when it comes to the regime there? Well, look, I do think the tools that we have, the sanctions, tools, and others have made a huge impact on the regime. And it's put the regime in a place as was

the case in 2016, the regime came to the table and negotiated the nuclear deal, not because of the threat of war. What was real was the sanctions effect on the Iranian economy. That brought them to the table. We reached that deal, but then we also maintain the ability to use sanctions against Iran for non-nuclear activity, missiles, you know, crackdowns on human rights. So I think we should try to return to that. Let's get a deal on the nuclear program and then use these other tools that we have to try to deal with non-nuclear activities that are causing instability in the region. That was Democratic Senator Tim Cain of Virginia. This episode was produced by Alejandra Marquez-Honsei and Karen Zamora with audio engineering by Ted Mebain. It was edited by Patrick Jern Watanan and Courtney Dorney. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan.

It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Elsa Chang.