Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a joint resolution on Thursday aimed at ending the unauthorized U.S. military role in the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.
The move comes amid President Biden’s unpopularvisit to the region, where he will visit with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the coming days. In an op-ed explaining the reasoning behind the trip, Biden touted an ongoing truce in Yemen, but didn’t say whether he would press for an end to the war.
The House introduced a similar bill last month led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). The senate companion will be considered “privileged,” meaning it can be voted on 10 calendar days after it is introduced.
“We must put an end to the unauthorized and unconstitutional involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in the catastrophic Saudi-led war in Yemen and Congress must take back its authority over war,” Sanders said in a press release. “More than 85,000 children in Yemen have already starved and millions more are facing imminent famine and death.”
Sen. Warren noted that “The American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, never authorized U.S. involvement in the war,” adding that “Congress abdicated its constitutional powers and failed to prevent our country from involving itself in this crisis.”
“The U.S. must immediately end its support for Saudi-led coalition in Yemen unless explicitly authorized by Congress,” she said.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Photos: Rob Crandall, Trevor Collens, and Rich Koele via shutterstock.com
Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.
The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”
“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations,” Trump posted on social media. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.”
The president subsequently had a call with the Ukrainian president, during which they discussed opportunities to achieve peace, the U.S.’s readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine's technological capabilities -- including drones and other “advanced industries,” according to Zelenskyy.
Many European leaders saw Trump’s call with Putin as a betrayal. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said that the Americans were giving Russia “everything that they want even before the negotiations” and that any agreement made without the Europeans “will simply not work.”
“This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality,” said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She insisted negotiations should not “go over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended President Trump’s call with Putin, saying that “there is no betrayal there,” but a “recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace, a negotiated peace.” He also softened his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership, saying that “everything is on the table in his (Trump’s) conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
Trump said he and Putin may meet for an initial discussion at an undetermined date in Saudi Arabia because “we know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” Vice President JD Vance will meet with Zeleskyy today on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
On Thursday, after the call, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said that the “position of the current (U.S.) administration is much more appealing.” For his part, Zelenskyy noted that he was not pleased that Trump chose to speak with Putin before himself and made it clear that Ukraine “cannot accept it, as an independent country, any agreements (made) without us.” However, he told reporters that he and Trump were “charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, ‘Let’s get it done.’”
“The Trump-Putin call and Defense Secretary Hegseth's subsequent statement signals a long overdue willingness by Washington not only to engage the Russians in wide-ranging, impactful discussions but to countenance the concessions necessary to make a deal stick,” the Quincy Institute's Mark Episkopos told RS. “The hard work of squaring U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions is still ahead, and all sides should be prepared for what will be a winding, tortuous road to a negotiated settlement.”
He added, “still, the administration has just taken a colossal leap forward not just to resolve the Ukraine war but to stake out a new, more propitious architecture of European security and to reap all of the long-term geopolitical rewards therefrom.”
According to The Washington Post, Russian authorities released an American prisoner, Marc Fogel, after being imprisoned for three and a half years on drug charges. Trump said that a Russian prisoner would be released to Moscow as part of a deal with the Kremlin and added that the exchange “could be a big, important part in getting the war over."
Ukraine may be open to giving the United States access to its mineral industry in exchange for continued financial assistance. In an interview with the Associated Press, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, remarked, “we really have this big potential in the territory which we control." He continued, “we are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.” Trump showed support for such a plan earlier this month.
China has said it is ready to play a significant role in the Ukraine-Russia negotiation process. The Wall Street Journalreported that “the offer, however, is being met with skepticism in the U.S. and Europe, given deep concerns over the increasingly close ties between Beijing and Moscow.” The Journal speculates that this offer could be a vehicle for Xi to increase contact with President Trump as he seeks to negotiate away from the aggressive economic measures promised by the Trump administration.
There were no Department of State press briefings this week.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.
But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.
Undoubtedly, Trump's plans in Gaza may make matters worse and his diplomacy with Putin may fail. But that isn't the point.
The point is: Why did Trump choose to pursue diplomacy and seek an end to the wars, and why did the Democrats under Biden choose to transform the party into one that embraced war and glorified warmongers like Cheney, while protecting and enabling a genocide?
What happened that caused the party to vilify its own voices for peace — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — while embracing some of the architects of the Iraq war?
And all of this, of course, in complete defiance of where the party base was (throughout the Gaza war, the base supported a ceasefire with 70% majority, for instance).
A profound reckoning is needed within the Democratic Party to save it from slipping into becoming neocon by default.
And with the pace at which Trump is moving, that reckoning needs to come fast. It will, for instance, be a severe mistake if the party positions itself to the right of Trump and reflexively opposes him on every foreign policy issue instead of basing the party's positions on solid principles, such as centering diplomacy, military restraint, and peace. Trump currently speaks more about peace than the Democrats do.
A senior Democratic lawmaker asked me rhetorically last week if I knew anyone who was happy with the foreign policy of Biden and voted for Harris on that basis.
I was happy to hear that the question was being asked. That's a good first step.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: President of South Africa MC Ramaphosa (President of the Russian Federation photo) and President Donald Trump (Shutterstock/Chip Somodevilla)
President Donald Trump’s attack on South Africa has brought relations between Washington and Pretoria to their lowest point since sanctions were imposed on the previous apartheid government in 1986.
It is also likely to reduce or eliminate White House participation in this year’s G20 meeting, hosted by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in Johannesburg in November. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last week that he will not attend the G20 foreign ministers’ preparatory meeting in protest.
In South Africa, this row comes seven months into a coalition government that is testing the ability of the former liberation movement, the African National Congress (ANC), to work with its partner, the strongly pro-Western Democratic Alliance (DA), which represents about 90% of white voters.
Ramaphosa’s ANC chose the DA over the third and fourth largest parties, which are black, anti-Western breakaways from the ANC that accuse the president of failing to address historic black land claims. Under this intense political pressure, the ANC produced an Expropriation Act it hoped would satisfy all sides.
The coalition government’s success depends on whether it can restore economic growth and reverse rising joblessness after 15 years of stagnation.
The spat began when Trump charged that “terrible things are happening in South Africa, they’re confiscating land and actually they’re doing things that are perhaps far worse than that.” At the same time, U.S. billionaire and the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has accused Pretoria of doing little to stop a “genocide” of white farmers.
Trump followed up with an Executive Order on Feb. 7, charging that the new law allowed government “to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation.” As a result of these “unjust and immoral practices,” the order froze all U.S. aid to South Africa, and promised to “promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination.”
Ramaphosa denied his government discriminates. “There is no single group that faces persecution,” he told Parliament.
“We are witnessing the rise of nationalism and protectionism, the pursuit of narrow interests and the decline of common cause,” he said. “But we are not daunted. We will not be deterred. We will not be bullied. We are a resilient people.”
Trump’s attack appeared to be prompted by the new law, under which no actions have yet taken place. A lobbying group campaigning against it only cited one previous example from 2018 of a farm being taken by a local official, who was forced to return it under a court order.
The DA has gone to court to review the constitutionality of the Act. It has a solid record of winning most of its court challenges. But all major parties backed the government in this fight against Trump, in part because it followed immediately after Trump froze USAID’s PEPFAR program, which supports HIV/AIDS treatment.
The medication for six million patients is paid for by South Africa, but PEPFAR contributes a crucial 17% of the cost in the form of nursing staff, quality monitoring, and other essential components.
Soon after an outcry from medical personnel who warned that AIDS patients who discontinue their regular medication may die, Rubio announced a waiver, but checks with program implementers indicate that the program has not yet resumed.
Behind the war of words is one of the most serious unaddressed maladies inherited from the apartheid past. Like its northern neighbor, Zimbabwe, getting land back taken under white governments was one of the primary missions of the anti-apartheid movement.
But both post-liberation Zimbabwe and South Africa did too little to implement those policies until a wave of popular sentiment made it political unavoidable. In Zimbabwe, the government was coerced into responding to a grassroots call for land by approving land invasions that led to about eight farm murders. A quarter of a century later, the economy of Zimbabwe has not recovered.
Most South African political parties and interest groups recognize that land reform is imperative.
Chris Burgess, editor of the Afrikaans language farmers’ magazine Landbou, agreed that there has not been land expropriation so far, and he is not especially concerned about the wording of the new law. “Farmers are less worried about the act as written than the spirit in which it will be implemented,” he told RS.
Burgess is especially concerned about the high rate of farm murders, though he has not seen evidence that white farmers were targeted for political reasons. Whites make up seven percent of the population, but only 2% of murders. Causes vary, and more employees are murdered on farms than white farmers.
Washington-based Genocide Watch’s Dr. Gregory Stanton, a professor of human-rights law, told The Spectator that “for all the tragedy of farm murders in South Africa, there is no evidence of a planned extermination.” There are instead, “opportunistic crimes,” sometimes acts of revenge by workers who are owed wages or feel aggrieved with their employers. Or there are just attacks carried out by thugs out for money.
Stanton’s research in South Africa shows that white people, urban or rural, are much safer than their black counterparts. Farmers are often vulnerable, isolated and easy targets, but that doesn’t make it genocide.
South Africa is in the throes of a crime wave that saw 69 murders per day nationally, and farmers have long agitated for better protection. Official figures showed 50 farmers (black and white) were killed in 2023, and 26 by November of 2024, according to South African Farmers’ Weekly.
“There is deep distrust of the state ability to do something constructive and effective about both crime and land reform,” said Burgess.
The new Expropriation Act replaces an apartheid-era law. It provides for expropriation for eminent domain, but also to reverse centuries of discrimination, most notably in the 1913 Land Act, which deprived black South Africans of access to the majority of farm land in South Africa.
The Act provides for compensation to be determined by specific criteria. If land is unused, improperly acquired or owned by the government, compensation could be less. In some circumstances, it could be handed over without compensation.
Trump first heard about the controversy during his first administration, after a lobbying campaign by a white South African farming group, AfriForum, who met with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and made an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show.
In 2025, about 70% of the land remains in the hands of whites, who constitute 7% of the population.
Soon after Trump’s criticism, AfriForum made it clear that it was opposed to Trump’s punitive measures, and joined most farmer organizations in saying they prefer to stay in South Africa and fight this battle to keep their land.
Ramaphosa has attempted to talk to Trump and announced a delegation will soon be going to Washington to try to ease tensions. But the argument about white farmers might be easier to resolve than another source of Trump’s displeasure.
The Executive Order also complains of South Africa’s “aggressive positions towards the U.S. and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and reinvigorating its relations with Iran to develop commercial, military and nuclear arrangements.”
Ramaphosa is known as a skilled negotiator from his days as a trade union leader and in his negotiations with the white government that led to a democratic constitution. But if the demand is that he drop South Africa’s case at the ICJ, this might be politically difficult, because the ANC’s historic sympathy for Palestine is deeply entrenched since its days when it too was the underdog.
The coalition government has not yet come up with an agreed foreign policy, and the DA has historically been strongly pro-Israel, but some ANC leaders see Palestine as a deal breaker for the coalition.
Ramaphosa still hopes for a resolution with Washington. Before this clash, he announced his invitation to Trump for a state visit ahead of the G20. He still hopes to persuade him to come, but that too is hard to imagine after Trump and Rubio’s rebuke.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.