Democratic divisions brew over funding Trump’s Iran war: ‘Going to be a need’
This is performative politics again.
Democrats are looking ahead to the next battle after losing a fight in Congress this week to rein in President Donald Trump’s war against Iran: Making sure he doesn’t have the money to wage it.
Democrats are vowing to wield their Senate filibuster power against more spending to fund the president’s war efforts after both chambers this week failed to curb Trump’s military campaign through war powers resolutions, and the administration weighs an emergency funding request.
“Good luck,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a leadership member, told the Washington Examiner. “What Democrat is going to vote to fund an illegal war that is turning into a bigger ham-handed disaster every minute?”
But not all Democrats are willing to outright dismiss the notion, previewing a looming divide within the minority party that’s otherwise presented a mostly unified front against Trump’s unilateral military actions abroad in places such as Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, and the Caribbean Sea. Several centrist senators won’t rule out additional funds for ongoing Middle East operations that have already killed six U.S. troops, to replenish munitions stockpiles used abroad, and for domestic protections, especially with Congress’s inability to halt Trump.
“There’s going to be a cost in this war that we haven’t budgeted for,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “There is going to be a need for funding, and we need some answers before we provide it.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, criticized the prospect of appropriating more funds to an already massive $1 trillion military budget but left the door open, stating she would need additional information about long-term objectives.
“I don’t rule anything out. I mean, we’re in it,” Slotkin told the Washington Examiner. “But this is exactly what the president said he wasn’t going to do — constantly get us in this cycle of wars, where outside the appropriation cycle, we need yet another supplemental that’s outside the enormous amount of money the Pentagon already has.”
In a 53-47 chamber, the Republican majority would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle. Democrats expect at least one in their rank, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who’s repeatedly broken with his party in recent votes on Trump’s Iran war powers and government funding, to side with more funding.
“They can bring a supplemental bill, but I don’t think — with the exception of one …
This is performative politics again.
Democrats are looking ahead to the next battle after losing a fight in Congress this week to rein in President Donald Trump’s war against Iran: Making sure he doesn’t have the money to wage it.
Democrats are vowing to wield their Senate filibuster power against more spending to fund the president’s war efforts after both chambers this week failed to curb Trump’s military campaign through war powers resolutions, and the administration weighs an emergency funding request.
“Good luck,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a leadership member, told the Washington Examiner. “What Democrat is going to vote to fund an illegal war that is turning into a bigger ham-handed disaster every minute?”
But not all Democrats are willing to outright dismiss the notion, previewing a looming divide within the minority party that’s otherwise presented a mostly unified front against Trump’s unilateral military actions abroad in places such as Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, and the Caribbean Sea. Several centrist senators won’t rule out additional funds for ongoing Middle East operations that have already killed six U.S. troops, to replenish munitions stockpiles used abroad, and for domestic protections, especially with Congress’s inability to halt Trump.
“There’s going to be a cost in this war that we haven’t budgeted for,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “There is going to be a need for funding, and we need some answers before we provide it.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, criticized the prospect of appropriating more funds to an already massive $1 trillion military budget but left the door open, stating she would need additional information about long-term objectives.
“I don’t rule anything out. I mean, we’re in it,” Slotkin told the Washington Examiner. “But this is exactly what the president said he wasn’t going to do — constantly get us in this cycle of wars, where outside the appropriation cycle, we need yet another supplemental that’s outside the enormous amount of money the Pentagon already has.”
In a 53-47 chamber, the Republican majority would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle. Democrats expect at least one in their rank, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who’s repeatedly broken with his party in recent votes on Trump’s Iran war powers and government funding, to side with more funding.
“They can bring a supplemental bill, but I don’t think — with the exception of one …
Democratic divisions brew over funding Trump’s Iran war: ‘Going to be a need’
This is performative politics again.
Democrats are looking ahead to the next battle after losing a fight in Congress this week to rein in President Donald Trump’s war against Iran: Making sure he doesn’t have the money to wage it.
Democrats are vowing to wield their Senate filibuster power against more spending to fund the president’s war efforts after both chambers this week failed to curb Trump’s military campaign through war powers resolutions, and the administration weighs an emergency funding request.
“Good luck,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a leadership member, told the Washington Examiner. “What Democrat is going to vote to fund an illegal war that is turning into a bigger ham-handed disaster every minute?”
But not all Democrats are willing to outright dismiss the notion, previewing a looming divide within the minority party that’s otherwise presented a mostly unified front against Trump’s unilateral military actions abroad in places such as Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, and the Caribbean Sea. Several centrist senators won’t rule out additional funds for ongoing Middle East operations that have already killed six U.S. troops, to replenish munitions stockpiles used abroad, and for domestic protections, especially with Congress’s inability to halt Trump.
“There’s going to be a cost in this war that we haven’t budgeted for,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “There is going to be a need for funding, and we need some answers before we provide it.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, criticized the prospect of appropriating more funds to an already massive $1 trillion military budget but left the door open, stating she would need additional information about long-term objectives.
“I don’t rule anything out. I mean, we’re in it,” Slotkin told the Washington Examiner. “But this is exactly what the president said he wasn’t going to do — constantly get us in this cycle of wars, where outside the appropriation cycle, we need yet another supplemental that’s outside the enormous amount of money the Pentagon already has.”
In a 53-47 chamber, the Republican majority would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle. Democrats expect at least one in their rank, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who’s repeatedly broken with his party in recent votes on Trump’s Iran war powers and government funding, to side with more funding.
“They can bring a supplemental bill, but I don’t think — with the exception of one …
0 Comments
0 Shares
36 Views
0 Reviews
