Democrats Must Defund Trump's Imperial War to Restore Congressional Control
Donald Trump has ordered military attacks on more countries than any previous president, actions that not only break his campaign promises but also violate the Constitution by bypassing congressional authorization. These assaults reflect a broader trend of imperial presidency, where executive power has been concentrated over decades, allowing presidents to act like monarchs in warmaking decisions.
Trump's Royal Self-Perception and Executive Overreach
Trump openly views himself in royal terms, yet the authority he wields was not created by him alone. It stems from powers accumulated by past presidents and courts, as detailed in the investigative podcast series Master Plan: The Kingmakers. The Constitution explicitly vests war powers in Congress to prevent one-person rule, but this safeguard has been eroded, leading to unchecked military actions.
The Power of the Purse as the Ultimate Check
Congress's ability to limit spending remains a potent tool against presidential overreach, even as other legislative measures have been weakened. Historical examples underscore this:
- In the 1970s, Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia without authorization. Only when lawmakers moved to defund the conflict did Nixon sign the Paris Peace Accords.
- In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's deployment to Lebanon ended after Democratic threats to cut funding, despite initial resistance.
- The Iran-Contra scandal highlighted the risks of defying congressional spending controls, resulting in indictments and a tarnished legacy for Reagan.
- During the Iraq War, Democrats eventually tied funding to withdrawal timelines, prompting George W. Bush to begin troop drawdowns.
Democratic Hesitation in the Trump Era
Despite widespread opposition to Trump's Iran incursion, Democratic leaders have been reluctant to use funding cuts. While some support war powers resolutions, they avoid committing to defunding efforts, fearing political backlash. For instance, top Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee considered voting for a $50 billion appropriations bill for the war, and House leader Hakeem Jeffries avoided pledging to block funds.
Political Risks and Public Opinion
Democrats worry about being labeled unpatriotic, a tactic used during the Bush era. However, current polls show the Iran attack is highly unpopular, making it less risky to oppose. Media narratives, such as CNN's framing of Democrats in a bind, complicate the issue, but figures like Senator Chris Murphy argue that defunding protects troops by preventing unnecessary wars.
Call to Action for Funding Blockades
Representative Ro Khanna emphasizes that history proves funding cuts are essential to ending wars, citing Vietnam and Iraq. He urges Democrats to take a clear stance against supplemental war dollars, warning that voting for funding while opposing war is disingenuous. The Lever's podcast producers, including David Sirota and team, stress that only congressional action can halt Trump's martial adventures.
In summary, the pattern is clear: imperial presidents only retreat when faced with financial constraints. Democrats must wield the power of the purse to curb Trump's war and uphold constitutional checks on executive authority.
