Senate rejects effort to limit Trump's war powers

For a fourth time, the Senate did not authorize invocation of war powers against President Trump for the war in Iraq. I want to turn to Capitol Hill correspondent Congressional Reporter Taurean Small. Taurean, how did it go down? Yeah, I mean, what we're seeing time after time when it comes to these war powers resolutions is that there just isn't a bipartisan appetite to really rebuke the president in this way. We've only seen so far one Republican really join with Democrats in this call to rein in the president's war powers, especially as it relates to this conflict with Iran. That's Senator Rand Paul, who's had his tiffs with the president previously. So this wasn't really a surprising vote by him today. But, ultimately, we'll see something similar on the House side sometime soon. Representative Gregory Meeks has a war powers resolution that he's looking to move forward. This also comes after Democrats unsuccessfully tried to push through unanimous consent votes on war powers and a war powers resolution during the pro forma session over the past two weeks when Congress is out on recess. Again, there isn't, at this point, any movement on the Republican side to join in with Democrats on this but also probably because they're waiting on that 60-day mark since this war has started for any sign or indication from the Trump administration that they're going to wind down before they're willing to step in. Them being Republicans, Major. Right. That 60-days is an authorization notice to the White House. You better come to Congress after that. That, at least, is in the War Powers Resolution underlying law. So catch us up, Taurean, because we haven't talked about it at all this week, but there is still this persistent and ongoing funding problem with the Department of Homeland Security. And I know this is very dense and very procedural, but there are some talks going on and a mechanism by which this might be addressed next week. Catch us up. Yeah, the hold up here, especially considering the Senate passed this deal that got support from everyone in the chamber through unanimous consent. But, ultimately, House Republicans signed on for this to go forward with what's known as budget reconciliation. That would only require a simple majority from Republicans in the Senate, as well as those in the House for it to make it to the president's desk. That mechanism would be used to fund ICE and CBP, which is what Democrats have been adamantly against. So they wanted to only fund every other agency minus those two. The real slow up or bottleneck here is the pushback we're seeing from the far-right flank of House Republicans. Members of the House Freedom Caucus want to ensure that ICE and CBP are properly funded through reconciliation. So we heard from Speaker Johnson today to say that that part of the process will go first. They want to pursue reconciliation before they have a vote on the other part of that, which would be every other agency. Two questions here, whether or not this bill, the reconciliation bill, will be packed with other priorities, which many Republicans are looking to see, including some provisions of the SAVE Act that can go through that, or if it will be known as skinny, which is what Leader Thune has been advocating for. That would only provide funding, potentially, for multiple years for ICE and CBP. The lingering question, though, Major, is whether or not Democrats in the House now will support the rest of the deal, which is funding every other agency outside of ICE and CBP, considering they would no longer be a part of conversations of immigration enforcement reforms, which was at the heart of the shutdown in the first place.

Taurean Small with all the details and complexities. And I know, folks, it sounds so dense, and it sounds so procedural, but process matters. And if the people at DHS are ever going to get paid, how that process plays out matters to them a great deal. Taurean Small, Capitol Hill, thanks so much.