Democrats must defund Trump’s imperial war | David Sirota, Jared Jacang Maher, Laura Krantz and Ron S Doyle
President Trump has launched an unsanctioned military strike against Iran, reviving a centuries‑old clash between the executive and legislative branches over war powers. Historical precedent shows that only congressional cuts to funding have forced presidents to end such conflicts, and Democrats no…
President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes against Iran without a congressional declaration, marking the first time a U.S. president has launched attacks on more foreign nations than any of his predecessors. The operation, carried out without the legal authorization required by the Constitution, has sparked a fresh debate over who truly controls the nation’s war‑making authority.
Constitutional limits and the rise of executive war power
The U.S. Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, a safeguard designed to prevent a single individual from acting as a modern monarch. Over the past five decades, however, presidents of both parties have expanded the executive’s ability to conduct military actions, often sidestepping the 1973 War Powers Act and congressional resolutions. Courts have routinely dismissed lawsuits challenging these actions, invoking the political‑question doctrine that leaves war‑making disputes to the political branches.
Even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a former Reagan administration lawyer, has affirmed that the power of the purse remains the most reliable check on presidential aggression. In a 1985 memo, Roberts wrote that “no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.” This observation underscores why historic wars have usually ended only after lawmakers threatened to withhold funding.
Historical precedents: When Congress cut the money
- Vietnam and Cambodia (1970‑71): President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia without congressional approval. When the expansion became public, Congress repealed the original Vietnam authorization and later moved to block funding, forcing Nixon to sign the Paris Peace Accords.
- Lebanon (1983‑84): President Ronald Reagan deployed troops to Lebanon without a formal war declaration. After a deadly Marine barracks bombing, Democratic lawmakers threatened to defund the mission, prompting Reagan to withdraw forces.
- Iraq (2007‑08): The Bush administration received near‑blank‑check funding for the Iraq war. In 2007, Democrats passed a bill tying new war money to a withdrawal timetable; although Bush vetoed it, the legislation signaled a shift that contributed to the eventual drawdown.
Each episode demonstrates a clear pattern: presidents may initiate or prolong conflicts, but they rarely end them without congressional pressure on the budget.
The current dilemma: Trump’s Iran strike and Democratic hesitation
Trump’s recent missile strikes on Iranian targets have been condemned by many as a prelude to a broader ground invasion. While public opinion polls show the Iran operation is among the least popular U.S. wars in recent memory, many Democratic leaders have stopped short of a full funding boycott. Senate Armed Services Committee members have issued press releases denouncing the attack yet signaled willingness to vote for a $50 billion supplemental appropriations package that would fund the operation.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who supported a failed war‑powers resolution demanding congressional approval for any Iran action, also refrained from pledging a funding veto. Some Democrats cite concerns about appearing “unpatriotic” or “soft on Iran,” a narrative that historically harmed opposition politicians during the post‑9/11 era. However, analysts argue that the political calculus has shifted: the Trump administration offered no public justification for the strike, and voters overwhelmingly oppose further entanglement in the Middle East.
Why a funding blockade could succeed now
Unlike the Bush era, where the Iraq war enjoyed an initial surge in public support, Trump’s Iran operation lacks a persuasive narrative. Media outlets have framed the Democratic dilemma as a “bind,” but the underlying facts suggest a clear path: Congress can attach conditions to any supplemental defense bill, refusing to allocate money for offensive operations that lack a war declaration.
Senators such as Chris Murphy and Representative Ro Khanna have publicly urged their colleagues to draw a hard line, echoing the tactics that ended Vietnam and Iraq. Murphy warned that voting for funding while condemning the war would appear contradictory, especially to voters who already reject another long‑term Middle‑East conflict. Khanna called for “zero supplemental dollars for the war,” emphasizing that a funding freeze is the only proven method to halt an imperial president’s agenda.
What comes next?
The next congressional session will determine whether Democrats can translate rhetoric into fiscal action. If they succeed in attaching a defunding provision to the defense appropriations bill, the Trump administration may be forced to scale back or abandon the Iran campaign. Failure to act could embolden further unilateral strikes, reinforcing the precedent that presidents can wage war as long as they secure the budget.
Meanwhile, the investigative podcast series Master Plan: The Kingmakers – produced by David Sirota, Jared Jacang Maher, Laura Krantz, and Ron S. Doyle – will debut its second season on March 16, offering a deeper dive into the historical tug‑of‑war between Congress and the executive branch.
Why it matters
The outcome will test whether Congress can still use its budgetary authority to curb unchecked presidential war powers, a check that has defined U.S. foreign policy since the Vietnam era.
Key points
- Trump launched Iran strikes without congressional approval
- Historical evidence shows wars end when Congress threatens to cut funding
- Democratic leaders are divided over supporting a funding veto
- Public opinion strongly opposes further Middle‑East conflicts
- A successful defunding effort could force the Trump administration to retreat
Frequently asked questions
Can Congress legally stop a presidential war without a declaration of war?
Yes. While the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, it also controls federal spending. By refusing to appropriate funds for a specific military operation, Congress can effectively halt the war.
What precedent exists for defunding a war?
Congress defunded the Vietnam expansion into Cambodia, forced Reagan to withdraw from Lebanon, and tied Iraq funding to a withdrawal timetable, each leading to the end of those conflicts.
Why are some Democrats hesitant to vote against war funding?
They fear political backlash framed as being ‘soft on the enemy’ or ‘unpatriotic,’ a narrative that hurt opposition politicians after 9/11, even though current polls show low public support for the Iran strike.
What role does the War Powers Act play in this debate?
The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and limits engagement without congressional approval to 60 days, but presidents have often ignored it, making the power of the purse a more enforceable tool.
