Your response?

Well, first, what President Trump has said is a lie because we had a diplomatic deal with Iran.

And go back and look in the aftermath of that deal under President Obama's second term, what did Iran have in term of enriched uranium or centrifuges? And the issue is we had their nuclear program under control and under international inspection.

President Trump decided to tear up that deal.

And we told him, if you do that...

If you walk away from a deal that's working, of course, Iran will go back to trying to seek a nuclear weapon.

His own secretaries of defense and state told him not to tear up the deal.

Do you foresee, you know, Congress using the power that you assigned yourselves within the bill itself to review this decision?

Your response?

Well, first, what President Trump has said is a lie because we had a diplomatic deal with Iran.

And go back and look in the aftermath of that deal under President Obama's second term, what did Iran have in term of enriched uranium or centrifuges? And the issue is we had their nuclear program under control and under international inspection.

President Trump decided to tear up that deal.

And we told him, if you do that...

If you walk away from a deal that's working, of course, Iran will go back to trying to seek a nuclear weapon.

His own secretaries of defense and state told him not to tear up the deal.

Do you foresee Congress using the power that you assigned yourselves within the bill itself to review this decision?

Yes sir I think it's at least ten twenty years

It was chilling Because like this already The longest war history United States longer than Vietnam And now DOD official saying add on Ten or Twenty Years So Um I said Is administration position that ...You tell if somebody born After nine eleven Let’s imagine In twenty thirty They join group that become associated Al Qaeda In twenty Thirty

Is Administration Position The AUMF Would Cover Them Those Organizations

without hesitation the Uh the Administration Witnesses Said Yes As Long They Become Associated Force Under Legal Standard Was Set Out .

Its Not Limited Time not limited geography really troubling but you know Im Also Troubled Another Thing Mean Know Iconic Ah New York Picture Of VJ Day Kiss Times Square August fourteenth Nineteen Forty Five There Ought Be Day Where Those Who Served War That You Declare War Over Then Celebrate Them Are People Happy Only Way Express It Are You Happy [applause]

Senator, first, an- any word from the White House since you sent that letter we referred to a- at the top of the piece?

Um, Jake, good to be with you.

The White House, uh, s- made a public statement that they're only striking designated narco terrorists, um, and they're lying.

I have been looking at the, every bit of this, from the original presidential directive in July, to the legal opinion issued by the Department of Justice authorizing military operations in September, to the Department of Defense targeting criteria in October.

All of this is classified, so I cannot really go into the contents, but I've reviewed all of it and I've reviewed the strike files themselves.

And when this administration says they are only striking designated narco terrorists, I can tell you from a review of the record, they're lying.

And the one thing I can tell you about the targeting criteria is what's not in the targeting criteria, and this stunned me when I finally was able to get it and review it.

Yeah.

Uh, is that something we should be discussing for everyone?

You know, and, and New Jersey has voter ID a- as well, Shannon, and this was a very unfortunate glitch.

Importantly, it wasn't that individuals were trying to vote illegally.

There was a computer glitch that when they registered for driver's licenses and said they were non-citizens, the glitch got them mistakenly classified as citizens and registered them to vote, and about 400 did vote in the 4 million New Jersey residents who voted in 2024.

I think the right answer here is voter ID laws passed at the state level.

As you know, Virginia has a voter ID law that's sort of been acceptable whether our Dem- uh, governors are Democrats or Republicans.

It's worked.

But when you look at their platform, things like abolishing the Senate, where you currently serve, uh, the Supreme Court, the presidency, abolishing borders and ICE and government takeover of businesses, I mean, is that something that can fit consistently within the Democratic platform?

Mm-hmm

...

the destruction of a school that caused the death of probably more than 175 students.

The w- the, uh, Pentagon has said they're doing a study of why they hit a school, and we know the study's done, but they haven't yet released us to it, to us.

Um, I th- I think I know why they don't want the public to see it.

Uh, e- threatening civilian infrastructure, it's a war crime.

It's a war crime.

Well, help me understand, what is up with this, with this deal with Saudi Arabia? Are you concerned about, about the potential for nuclear, uh, prol- pro- proliferation in the region with this, this Saudi Arabia deal that, that we're hearing about now?

He explained, "Officers need to be brutally candid in order to give good advice." He said, "These recent firings raise a real risk senior officers will be overly cautious about providing their best advice, and therefore, the chance for military miscalculation will grow dramatically." How concerned are you? Can Congress intervene and do anything here?

Well, I don't think that concern is misplaced.

We're worried about the same thing.

Are you, are you pushing out the truth-tellers to surround yourself by yes-men? And in particular, it looks like the secretary is coming down hardest, coming down hardest on the Army.

He served in the Army.

He, he felt like he wasn't treated well by the Army.

That's a grudge he's carried that he's described publicly.

Uh, what are you hearing from your NATO partners there about the American plans to reduce the presence in Europe?

The first time it succeeded, what do you think changed? Well,

what changed was 100-plus days of war convinced Republicans to join Democrats in saying, you're right, this was not only illegal, it was foolish.

Some Republicans believe the president has the power to initiate war for 60 days, but then has to seek congressional authorization.

Others have been watching as the consequences have been stacking up, 13 U.S. troops dead, more than $50 billion spent on the war, Americans paying more at the gas pump, and the price tag is still being calculated.

And I think as time went on, more and more of my colleagues started to join us in voting to rebuke the president and say, this war is unlawful.

And, Phil, this is a historic vote, never in the history of the War Powers Resolution.

have both houses of Congress passed a piece of legislation telling the president, your war is illegal, get out of it, unless Congress authorizes it.

But I do think it's worth just for somebody who's watching this and saying, well, wait, if the White House is saying they're not going to abide by it and they believe it's unconstitutional, both this concurrent resolution, but also the war powers law in general, what is the kind of mechanism to enforce here?

But help us understand what happens next.

So War Powers has been my obsession since I came to Congress in 2013.

And I faced off against my friend, President Obama, President Trump term one, President Biden, President Trump term two, always saying, you can't send our sons and daughters to war without coming to Congress.

The War Powers Resolution vote that we had today is historic in this way.

In the 52 years of this act, this is the first time that both houses have looked at the president and said, your war is illegal and you have to stop it.

It wasn't just the Senate voting.

We took up a bill that had passed the House.

Taking an issue like this and leveling it up to the point where it's more than just, you know, well, we're not sure, but, you know, we got this vote

What to you is the best way forward realistically?

Well, I do think a negotiated end to the war.

The, the memorandum of understanding had fourteen points to it.

It's vastly inferior to the JCPOA that President Obama and America's allies negotiated over the, over a period of about two years, and yet it's still better than a stupid war.

And so I want the administration to stay at the table and find the path forward.

The, the deal is likely to have to be submitted to Congress pursuant to a bill that I wrote ten years ago, the Iran Nuclear Review Act, and Congress will then get to examine it and weigh in on it.

But look, a bad peace deal is better than a foolish and illegal war.

What is the next step for you to, to get a success that a president will sign into law?

Thank you.

Well, I want to thank Adria and thank you all.

It's great to be together with you.

And Jim, it was good to hear you as we work on a whole series of efforts.

I do believe that ESOPs are just a unique opportunity.

I've sometimes been accused of you know, being a capitalist.

And I say, actually, I've never been a capitalist.

Do you think he still today retains that level of respect among both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill or not?

Well, look, I think, um, we understand the role of a cabinet secretary.

You, you are not a free agent.

You're carrying out the positions of the administration.

And, um, a lot of the things that Secretary Rubio has been asked to do by this president are contrary to earlier positions.

I mean, he was the chief spokesperson for the rights of Cuban dissidents, even those might, maybe seeking refugee status in the United States.

He's presided over a state department that has shut down those programs while opening up refugee admissions for Afrikaner farmers.

Uh, do you anticipate that considering some of the things that have gone on politically with, uh, John Cornyn, with others, might get you farther down that road?

Why do you think Senator Cassidy voted with you this time?

Well, you know, Kaitlan, I, I don't wanna put words in colleagues' mouths, but I guess the way I'll say this is when we started on this pathTo say no war against Iran without a vote of Congress, we had one Republican vote, Rand Paul.

Um, a few weeks later, uh, we were eight weeks into the war, we had a, a second Republican vote, Susan Collins.

Last week, once we passed 60 days, which is relevant under the War Powers Act, we got a third vote, Lisa Murkowski, and today Bill Cassidy joined.

And, and this slow, steady momentum of Republicans saying, "Mr.

President, you can't wage war without Congress," uh, is building.

It matches what I'm hearing as I travel around Virginia, and I predict we're gonna continue to see more Republicans in both the House and the Senate join in to assert the constitutional prerogative of Congress members that a president should not be able to wage war on his own.

So where do you think that math is? Who do you think you could get to come around here?

Uh, what do you make of, of the different dynamics that we're about to see play out in Beijing tonight?

Well, the, President Trump may have thought the war would be quick, but anybody who's paid any attention to the history of United States wars in the Middle East would have told him, "You're in a fantasy land." You know, th- th- they, they sort of believed a fake narrative that they could, uh, start a war and end it in a few days, and what about the last 25 years in the Middle East would have made you believe that? Um, and so that's the challenge the president has, is he's going into a situation where he had a pie-in-the-sky view of what his unwise and illegal war would produce, and he's been proven dramatically wrong.

And that puts him in a weak position.

Um, I think the, the bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill is will the president, um, try to win a short-term economic deal with China, uh, at the expense of giving away long-term national security objectives for the United States and our allies?

Given the way, though, that this war is impacting Americans, do you welcome Chinese efforts to help bring the war to an end?

Anything that brings this war to an end would be a positive.

The ceasefire we're in should be extended.

Uh, the president has said he might start, you know, bombing again tomorrow.

What's next?

There are court proceedings in, uh, before the Virginia Supreme Court.

Um, the court refused to stay the referendum, but there are still Republican challenges to it.

Um, you know, you never wanna predict with certainty what courts will do, but, uh, but consider this, Jen.

In Republican states that have followed Donald Trump's effort to rig elections, they've done it in the back room.

Uh, the legislature has, you know, cooked up a plan, stolen Democratic seats, and just forced it down the voters' throats.

In Virginia, we saidWe're gonna make the maps available to all and then we'll let everybody vote on it by referendum.

Mm-hmm

What do you think that those terms should look like if the U.S. and Iran do come to an agreement?

Well, it's happened and it's underway, but I don't want more Virginians to be deployed in an illegal and an unwise war.

These carrier strike groups that are being sent over one after the next, hundreds and then thousands, include an awful lot of Virginians.

And I've got their families asking me, why are we doing this? What's the rationale? When the sailors on the Ford gonna come home? It just passed the longest deployment in the history of the United States.

They were supposed to be home by Christmas.

They're still over there.

What should we do? We should negotiate to keep the Strait open and keep the ceasefire going.

Why do you think they've changed their minds?

Um, Senator, it is a little odd to, to, to watch this back and forth and the, um, [laughs] the debate over Catholic teaching on just war theory and theology, but it strikes me as the, the reason that he's angry is that people know that the war is unpopular and don't like it.

Uh, Chris, this war is deeply unpopular, and of course it is.

You go into a war with no rationale, with no plan, no work to get allies on board, no consultation with Congress, certainly not a vote by Congress, uh, and guess what? It doesn't work out well, and the American people really hate this war.

I represent Virginia, a very pro-military state, but a lot of folks in my state have sons, daughters, and spouses deployed right now or, or worried that they will be deployed, and they're asking questions like, "What is this for? Have we learned nothing from 25 years of unproductive war in the Middle East?" So yes, Donald Trump is lashing out at everybody he can, um, but the bottom line is he has blundered this nation into a war of choice after tearing up a diplomatic deal that was working, and American troops are dying, and others are suffering as a result.

What does this say to you about the Democratic Party and caucus that these votes are, are getting an overwhelming, if not almost unanimous, support from your caucus?

Well so first on the War Powers Resolutions, again, with re- with the exception of Senator Fetterman, every member of the Democratic caucus says we shouldn't be at war without a vote of Congress, and this is an unwise and illegal war.

We are very unified about it, and we are forcing votes every week, ah, to stop this war or at least make plain to the American public who's behind it.

Um, we have not yet, yet gotten Republicans to join us other than Rand Paul, who's been very consistent in opposing, ah, this war.

Do you think if President Trump tries to withdraw from NATO, Congress will be able to block him and that Republicans would be on board with that?

that?Um, uh, Kristen, I do.

This was a bill that I actually introduced with Senator John McCain.

I think it was one of his last bills before he died, and then Senator Rubio picked it up as the chief Republican after Senator McCain died.

We, we got it passed in, I believe, the end of 2023, a very important bill.

The president cannot withdraw from NATO without support of Congress.

We are stronger with allies than when we're operating on our own, and if the president were to announce, "I'm withdrawing from NATO," it would be like Donald Trump saying the sun will come up in the west tomorrow.

What exactly did Democrats get out of this shutdown, Senator?

Uh, Senator, what is your reaction to this news? Have you been able to get any other information on the status of the stur- search, or the status of this other A-10 Warthog that apparently has been shot down as well, at least according to the Iranians?

Iranians?Yeah, Jake, I pretty much know what, uh, what you are reporting.

Um, it is good news that, uh, one of the pilots in the F-15 has been recovered, thank God.

And, uh, look, the message that I wanna deliver here, because the Iranians monitor US media pretty darn carefully, is, uh, if this second pilot is rescued, treat him or her in accord with international humanitarian law about prisoners.

Many are making the case that the US actions to strike, um, you know, downed, um, survivors of, of, of attacks in the Caribbean or Pacific, um, or the striking of civilian infrastructure in Iran, many are making the case that that is a violation of international law.

And if Iran shows that it will follow international humanitarian law in the treatment of this pilot should they, uh, should they seize him, uh, that would be a very strong statement, uh, that, uh, we oughta, we oughta always follow rules, especially with respect to survivors of attacks like this, and I'm praying for this individual and their family.

The news about the second downing of an A-10, at least the early news, is that the pilot, uh, was recovered, and I pray that that's the case, and I pray for the safety of the search and rescue teams that are looking for the second F-15, uh, staffer.

What's your response?

Why do you think the president is now changing his mind?

Um, Alicia, you got me.

Why the president changes his mind, who can say? But, but here's the reality, um, the long TSA lines, the fact that Coast Guardees, Coast- Coasties are on Navy ships with sailors who are being paid and the Coasties aren't being paid, it's all on the Republicans.

We worked out a funding deal with Republicans weeks ago for all of these agencies, and what we've said to them for weeks now is, "Can you guys take yes for an answer? [laughs] Take yes for an answer.

Let's fund all the agencies at the levels you agree with, except ICE, where we need serious reforms.

Let's have the discussion about ICE reforms." There's no pressure there because the Republicans pre-funded ICE with, like, seven years of budget last summer.

So ICE agents are being paid right now.

Um, what do you interpret that escalation to mean regarding the administration's next steps here?

I wonder what you made of the timing of the president's comments.

Well, I think none of us know the answer to that.

And we've been in both open settings and classified hearings.

And we haven't heard a rationale.

We haven't heard a time length.

We haven't heard a plan.

And the question that we're asking is, haven't we learned enough from 25 years of war in the Middle East? Why do we need to be there now? And in particular, what the four of us want is public hearings.

I think when the American people hear from these administration officials, they will see how thin the case for this was, and that I hope will hasten the end of the conflict.

What do we know about the threat here and to other American posts?

There are threats because of my service on the Foreign Relations Committee.

I've been in dialogue with State Department personnel around the world, escalated security.

Other embassies or consulates have had protests, protests that kind of were merging toward violence or at least frightening to our diplomats.

We have American citizens stranded in the region.

They were told to come home, but they weren't told to come home until after the commercial air flights had stopped.

And so my office has been working with Virginians this week, trying to help them come home.

Have you heard an estimate on cost? Where are we on this supplemental? Will it get any Democratic support?

Why is it still necessary to hold this vote?

First, every senator should go on the record as to whether they support this war with Iran.

President Trump is calling it a war.

Secretary Rubio has called it a war.

Head of the Joint Chiefs, General Cain, has called it a war.

We are not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress.

Members, including senators, like to duck and dodge and hide rather than be accountable.

But what can Congress really do here at this point to rein in the president on Iran besides just rebuking him symbolically with this vote?

Right.

It's not just, uh, twenty twenty-six.

Um, even though the Constitution is super clear on this, and both the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention minutes make very plain that as much as they loved George Washington, they didn't, they didn't even trust George Washington to make a decision about war on his own because it's too consequential.

Um, members of Congress realized pretty early in our nation's history that war votes are tough, that even under the best of circumstances people might die, and under lesser circumstances you can really get into a jam.

And so members of Congress would s- in many instances prefer to hide under their desk, let a president do it, blame him if it goes wrong.

If it goes right, say, "Hey, we are with you all along." But as I, as I said, um, not only because it's in the Constitution, but there is a value judgment expressed in that provision that says if we're gonna send our sons and daughters into war where they face death or injury, we should only do it if we have the guts to have the debate in front of the American public and say, "This is a mission that's worth it." And if we won't do that work-

[laughs]

But here, but, you know, the, the legal rationale, what was, what was imminent? Uh, what are your targeting criteria? The news is out that, uh, we s- we struck a school and 170 possibly little school children were killed.