Ro Khanna speaks at a news conference in Washington on January 30, 2019.(AP / Andrew Harnik)
Is it possible to cut through the noise of two nights of Democratic presidential debates and get a real sense of whether these contenders are ready to take us past the broken politics that put Donald Trump in office?
Absolutely. A pair of simple “yes” or “no” questions—suggested by a piece of legislation advanced this week by Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA)—will do the job.
But first some context: Since World War II, presidents have taken us to war without the congressional declarations that the Constitution requires. And Congress has let them get away from it. Trump loves this precedent. He’s even said that while he likes keeping members of Congress “abreast” of his erratic deliberations about ordering attacks on other countries, “I don’t have to do it legally.”
Yes, there’s a Constitution that says different. Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says the president needs congressional approval before he embarks on “hostilities” against Iran. Yet, Trump told The Hill this week, “I disagree. Most people seem to disagree.”
This president needs to be told that he is wrong—not in some abstract or theoretical sense but in the clear and unequivocal manner that sets a standard for Trump and the presidents to come. He needs to be reminded that, as Khanna says, “Congress decides when we go to war. That is a fundamental aspect of our system of checks and balances, and we intend to hold our president to his constitutional responsibility.”
By “we” he means House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Eliot Engel (D-NY), House Armed Services chair Adam Smith (D-WA), House Rules Committee chair Jim McGovern (D-MA), Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), and the other original co-sponsors of a bipartisan amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that Khanna has written—with Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida—to prevent the use of federal funds for any military action against Iran that lacks congressional authorization. (Khanna is a backer of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but one of the cosponsors of the amendment is another Democratic presidential contender, Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton.)
The amendment is specific. It clarifies that Trump cannot use the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, which have so frequently been abused by presidents to “justify” unauthorized military actions, as an excuse for attacking Iran.
Presidents have a responsibility to defend the United States. But that responsibility cannot become a rationalization for launching undeclared wars. Even after the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt obtained declarations of war from the full House and Senate. “This bipartisan amendment is a vital safeguard against unilateral actions by this president who selected the architect of the Iraq war to be his national security advisor,” says Khanna. “This amendment is also proof that opposition to war with Iran transcends partisan politics. With this effort, Americans can come together around the idea that we must stop a war with Iran.”
This unified message is necessary because, as the congressman notes, “President Trump campaigned on ending costly wars overseas but given the advisors he chose and his recent risky actions, he is not living up to that promise.”
Which brings us back to the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidates at the debates on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
Here’s the first question: Yes, or no, do you support the bipartisan amendment sponsored by Congressman Ro Khanna and key House members to bar the use of federal funds for any exercise of military force against Iran that lacks explicit congressional authorization?
Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets.
Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.
As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war.
In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth.
The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more.
But this journalism is possible only with your support.
This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?
Here’s the second question: Yes, or no, would you as president accept the standard outlined in the Constitution, and reasserted by the Khanna-Gaetz amendment, that presidents must obtain formal approval from both houses of Congress before using military force?
The candidates will, of course, want to say more. That’s fine.
But if we can start with a “yes” and a “yes” from each of them, that’s significant. And if any of the candidates answer “no” to either question, or if any of them equivocate in any way, well, that’s even more significant.
John NicholsTwitterJohn Nichols is the executive editor of The Nation. He previously served as the magazine’s national affairs correspondent and Washington correspondent. Nichols has written, cowritten, or edited over a dozen books on topics ranging from histories of American socialism and the Democratic Party to analyses of US and global media systems. His latest, cowritten with Senator Bernie Sanders, is the New York Times bestseller It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.