“It will certainly demonstrate whether Democrats are willing to stretch themselves and put up a fight and get uncomfortable.”
For months, Democrats have forced Republicans to take vote after vote on President Donald Trump’s unpopular war on Iran, a conflict that began on February 28. Now, those legislative maneuvers could help Democrats retake Congress, handing them immediate opportunities to follow through on their anti-war rhetoric. But as the lame-duck period unfolds before the next Congress is sworn in on January 3, the path forward remains laden with risk.
Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, have been cagey about their strategy on Iran. Months of Capitol Hill maneuvering have produced few concrete results. Opponents of the war argue that if Democrats truly want to back up their rhetoric, they must be willing to put government spending on the line.
“So much of the rhetoric has been about the Iran war,” said Hannah Morris, vice president of government affairs for J Street, the liberal, pro-Israel group that opposes the conflict. Morris added that she remains uncertain just how aggressively Democrats will pursue the issue before the new year.
Up to this point, anti-war lawmakers and their allies have funneled their energy into votes grounded in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which restricts the executive branch from waging unauthorized military campaigns. In June, both the House and Senate passed a war powers resolution. The Trump administration simply ignored the vote, arguing the statute is unconstitutional.
While advocates maintain that the administration should be bound by that resolution, they concede that other legislative tools carry significantly more teeth.
The December 11 Spending Deadline and Government Shutdown Leverage
The most immediate flashpoint arrives on December 11, when the continuing resolution keeping the federal government funded expires. Democrats could attempt to attach a rider to the bill prohibiting the use of any of its funds for the Iran war.
If that amended spending bill fails to clear both chambers, a government shutdown ensues. Jeffries declined to signal whether his caucus would risk a shutdown when pressed during a recent CNN interview.
“Listen, we’ll deal with the appropriations process when we deal with the appropriations process,” Jeffries said. “Right now, the mechanism that is in front of us will be to aggressively move war powers resolutions until we end this war in the best interest of the American people.”
Some Democratic candidates in tight races have embraced a harder line on appropriations. Meanwhile, outside advocates argue that half-measures will no longer satisfy the electorate.
“If they are serious,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and former State Department official, “they should be willing to play hardball, and that would require using the power of the purse.”
Confronting the National Defense Authorization Act
Beyond the December spending deadline, another vehicle exists in the pending debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual Pentagon budget and policy bill. War critics suggest Congress could attempt to insert a provision into the law cutting off authorization for the conflict.
Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East Policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, argues that Democrats should block the defense bill if it lacks “meaningful restrictions” on the administration’s war powers.
“That’s the mandate we’re seeing from the American people,” El-Tayyab said. “They shouldn’t pass a massive defense bill while leaving the administration free to pursue yet another open-ended war in the Middle East.”
Because the defense bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation, Senate Democrats possess the leverage to block it via filibuster. The office of Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not respond to a request for comment on the strategy.
Other key lawmakers urge caution regarding what can realistically be achieved before January. Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told The Intercept that he remains open to exploring appropriations or NDAA riders.
“That effort would most likely require bipartisan support,” Smith said in a statement. “Unfortunately, I am not confident that there is sufficient Republican will or support for such legislative efforts or to override an inevitable veto.”
If current legislative attempts stall, Democrats may simply wait until January, when they are widely predicted to hold the gavels in one or both chambers. Securing control of the House or Senate would instantly expand their investigative powers and authority over military spending.
