Follow us on social

google cta
Us_troops_in_syria

Gaetz effort to bring troops home from Syria fails despite bipartisan vote

Support, however, came primarily from an ‘interesting mix of mostly progressives and right-wingers.’

Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The War Powers Resolution that would have required President Joe Biden to withdraw all U.S troops from Syria within 180 days did not pass on Wednesday night, with 103 members of the House voting in favor of the resolution, and 321 against. Fifty-six Democrats and 47 Republicans supported the resolution. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced the bill last week, indicated to Breitbart News on Tuesday that he expected “low Democrat support” on his resolution, but the Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported later on Tuesday that the Congressional Progressive Caucus would urge its members to vote “yes.”

In the end, many of the most prominent progressive members supported the resolution, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), as well as Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who introduced a similar amendment last year. 

But other powerful Democrats, including some who had previously supported Bowman’s 2022 legislation, like new Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and former Chair of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), voted against this resolution. In total, 74 more Democrats supported Bowman’s amendment than voted for today’s bill. 

Among Republicans, support increased from 25 to 47 votes since last summer. According to Just Foreign Policy, that represents the largest number of GOP House members to ever vote for a War Powers Resolution. 

Many of the Republican supporters are the same ones who have voiced skepticism over Washington’s continued funding of Ukraine. More than half of those who voted “yes” on this bill were also among the 30 signatories of Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-Ohio) January letter that called for increased transparency on financial support to Kyiv. 

As Insider’s Bryan Metzger noted on Twitter, the supporters were primarily an “[i]nteresting mix of mostly progressives and right-wingers. Though also some interesting names in-between, like [Democrat Jake] Auchincloss, [Republicans Tom] Emmer, [Nancy] Mace, and of course, [George] Santos.” 

“There is no role for the United States of America in Syria. We are not a Middle Eastern power. We have tried to build a democracy out of sand, blood, and Arab militias. Time and again, the work we do does not reduce chaos. Oftentimes, it causes chaos – the very chaos that then subsequently leads to terrorism. While today’s vote may have failed, my fight to end forever wars and bring our troops home has only just begun,” said Gaetz in a statement following the vote. 

During the debate over the Concurrent Resolution earlier in the day on Wednesday, Gaetz, and Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Cory Mills (R-Fla.), and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) spoke in favor of the bill. “The United States is not the world’s policeman and it is incredibly unwise to promote this level of involvement in international disputes. Democrat and Republican presidents alike have abused the power granted under the ‘01 and ‘02 AUMFs, and Congress must act to reign back the executive branch’s war authorities,” said Mills. “Continuing to dump trillions of dollars into these endless wars is irresponsible, runs contrary to America’s economic and security interests, and unnecessarily places American lives in jeopardy.” 

Many of the opponents who spoke in the debate, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and ranking member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), agreed that it was important for Congress to discuss the AUMFs, but argued that the mission in Syria was both legally covered by the 2001 statute and important to maintaining American security. 


Members of the Coalition and Syrian partner force conduct a patrol through a local village along an established de-confliction zone in support of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve in the Dayr Az Zawr Province, Syria, Dec. 23, 2018. Coalition Forces remain committed to supporting its partner forces to prevent an ISIS resurgence. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Arjenis Nunez/Released)
google cta
Reporting | Middle East
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.