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. 


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

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.