Democrats look for leverage on Trump’s Iran war in an unusual place
With President Donald Trump ignoring calls to seek congressional authorization for his war with Iran, Democrats are turning to one of the few remaining pressure points they have left: The National Defense Authorization Act.
Democrats have effectively brought the annual defense policy bill to a standstill, blocking the traditionally bipartisan measure on the Senate floor this week and warning that they won’t allow it to move forward unless Republicans agree to legal guardrails limiting the war.
The standoff has spilled into broader spending talks, raising new doubts about whether Congress can avoid a government shutdown before Oct. 1.
Democrats blocked a procedural motion to begin debate on the NDAA on Tuesday in a 50-46 party-line vote, arguing the legislation effectively amounts to congressional approval of Trump’s war. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told MS NOW that Democrats won’t allow the bill to move unless it includes language limiting the conflict.
“If there is going to be action on the NDAA, it’s going to have to have stuff in it about this illegal war,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed that position, saying he wouldn’t allow the bill to “become a permission slip for that recklessness that we see occurring in Iran.”
Of course, war powers resolutions were Democrats’ first choice to oppose the war. Senators adopted a House-approved resolution calling for an end to hostilities on June 23. But because the resolution lacked the force of law, the symbolic rebuke has done little to alter Trump’s military campaign.
With Congress on record opposing the war, Democrats now worry that any approval of an annual defense authorization measure will be interpreted as a tacit legal justification for Trump’s strikes.
“The war is back on, and there has been no debate or discussion or hearing or an authorization of the use of military force,” Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told MS NOW. “So I’m not going to authorize the money for the Defense Department and pretend that’s not an authorization of the war.”
Sen. Chris Murphy agreed, arguing Trump is scrambling for a legal justification for the conflict.
“This is a war authorization by definition because this bill authorizes funding for the war,” the Connecticut Democrat told MS NOW. “I think there’s a real worry that a vote for this bill is an implicit vote to authorize the war. The administration will clearly make the case that senators that vote for this authorization are voting for the war.”
Republicans, meanwhile, argue Democrats are holding national security hostage.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Democrats “have been playing fast and loose with our nation’s security all year,” pointing to three recent government shutdowns and the lapse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Authorization law.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said Democratic opposition to a procedural vote was proof they’re operating in bad faith on must-pass bills.
“This vote was just, ‘hey, should we consider this thing?’ They wouldn’t even vote to consider it,” Moreno told MS NOW. “They’re currently plotting to shut down the government. That’s insane.”
Democrats reject that characterization, but they acknowledge there’s a link between the stalled defense authorization bill and the unproductive negotiations on government funding bills.
In both cases, Republicans are seeking huge increases to defense spending, but they haven’t made any promises about non-military funds. Democrats don’t want to agree to a defense funding framework without a more holistic agreement on the budget, Kaine said.
“The problem is, we can’t really authorize to a top line on defense without a nondefense top line,” Kaine said. “Because a big increase in the defense budget is like, ‘Wait, is it coming out of Medicaid and SNAP?’”
He added that, until members of the Appropriations Committee have an agreement on defense and nondefense spending, “I don’t think anything’s going to happen” on the military authorization measure.
Meanwhile, Republicans have begun advancing a reconciliation package providing roughly $73 billion for the Iran war, allowing them to bypass a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
While Senate Republicans remain skeptical of pursuing a third reconciliation bill, the move underscores that GOP leaders are preparing to fund the war without Democratic votes.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has continued to insist that Republicans “have to” deliver defense funding on their own, arguing that Democrats are refusing to work with leadership on negotiations.
Recommended
“Given the Democrats’ absolute refusal to work with us on the nation’s top priorities … we’re moving forward with a narrow, streamlined package,” Johnson said.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, argued Republicans had little choice but to go it alone.
“I think in this case, there’s not much alternative,” Cole said. “Look, we’re not going to get any Democratic support here.”
“This is an old-fashioned bar fight,” Cole continued. “In the bar fight, you know, you better win.”
But without a broader agreement on spending levels, and without an opportunity to oppose a specific war-funding bill, Democrats have few options but to dig in for a fight on the defense authorization measure. And they increasingly see the NDAA as their most meaningful point of leverage.
More votes on war powers resolutions — after Trump has ignored the one that both chambers adopted — might not serve a purpose, Kaine told reporters.
“We don’t need to,” Kaine said of holding more war powers votes. “I mean, my view is Congress has definitively said this war is illegal.”
Still, some lawmakers have continued searching for a compromise. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told MS NOW Republicans are interested in giving Democrats an opportunity to “express their concerns” about Iran, as long as any changes don’t undermine GOP support.
In the House, moderate Reps. Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., both conveyed a need for involving Democrats for defense spending.
Kiley, an independent who conferences with Republicans, said he’s “so disappointed” with leadership pursuing a third reconciliation with supplemental funding and is “skeptical” that the GOP can pass it.
“I don’t want to see us go down the third reconciliation path, when we’re talking about national defense spending in particular,” he said. “Should really be done in a bipartisan way. So disappointed this is where things are at.”
Bacon also cautioned that reconciliation “is a tough hill to climb,” after calling for more money in defense.
“We should be doing this in a more bipartisan way. The reconciliation way is a tough hill to climb, and I think Democrats need some ownership too on our defense policy,” the Nebraska Republican said. “Just kind of doing a go-it-alone approach, I think, will make it short-lived.”
Key Democrats indicated they’re prepared to keep blocking the NDAA until something changes — either on the war or on broader spending negotiations.
“I think we should pass the NDAA bill,” Shaheen told MS NOW. “The question is, how that gets done and when.”
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University.
Syedah Asghar
Syedah Asghar covers Congress for MS NOW.
