Democrats Urged to Defund Trump's Imperial War Amid Constitutional Crisis
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. The constitution, designed as an anti-monarch document, places warmaking powers solely in the legislative branch to prevent decisions by any individual aspiring to be a king. Trump has openly expressed royal self-perceptions, yet he is not the architect of this kingly authority. Instead, he wields powers concentrated in the executive branch by past presidents and courts.
The Power of the Purse as a Historical Weapon
As revealed in the investigative podcast series Master Plan: The Kingmakers, the only effective tool to stop a mad king is Congress's power of the purse. This power, once effectively used by Democrats, now seems underutilized, even as Trump's unpopular Iran incursion raises fears of a second world war. The legislative and executive branches have long clashed over war powers, with presidents often ignoring laws like the 1973 War Powers Act. Courts have dismissed lawsuits citing the political questions doctrine, leaving Congress's spending authority as the last unchallenged check.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a proponent of presidential authority, acknowledged in 1985 that the power of the purse is clearly Congress's domain. This contrast between weak non-budgetary legislation and strong spending power explains why presidents' wars only end when lawmakers threaten to cut funding.
Historical Precedents of Defunding Wars
For example, Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia without authorization. When lawmakers repealed the original resolution, it had little effect. Only when Congress moved to block funding did Nixon sign the Paris Peace Accords. Similarly, Ronald Reagan's deployment in Lebanon ended after Democratic threats to defund the operation, despite initial resistance from conservatives who favored executive control in foreign policy.
The Reagan administration's attempt to ignore funding laws for Nicaragua led to the Iran-Contra scandal, reinforcing Congress's purse power. Later, the Iraq war persisted due to bipartisan blank checks until Democrats tied funding to withdrawal timetables in 2007, prompting troop drawdowns.
Current Democratic Hesitation and Political Risks
Today, Democrats oppose Trump's Iran war but hesitate to use defunding tactics. While voting for resolutions against unauthorized military action, leaders like those on the Senate armed services committee consider supporting a $50bn funding bill. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries avoids committing to block war funds, reflecting a conflict between voter opposition and support for regime change in Iran.
Many Democrats fear being labeled unpatriotic, a trope from the Bush era. However, polls show Trump's Iran attack is highly unpopular, unlike the initially popular Iraq invasion. This reduces political risk for opposition, yet media outlets like CNN frame Democrats as indecisive.
Calls for Action and Legislative Pressure
Senator Chris Murphy argues that supporting troops means voting against war funding to keep them safe. Representative Ro Khanna emphasizes that defunding is the only way to end wars, citing Vietnam and Iraq as examples. He warns against Democrats who claim opposition but vote for funding, urging a clear stance.
In summary, imperial presidents only halt wars when defunded. Democrats must leverage Congress's power of the purse to stop Trump's conflict, learning from history to avoid prolonged military engagements.
