Follow us on social

House votes to punish Biden for pausing some bombs for Israel

House votes to punish Biden for pausing some bombs for Israel

Congress truly flexes its war powers — when it wants more war

Reporting | Washington Politics

The Israel Security Assistance Support Act that passed the House on Thursday is primarily a messaging and political bill — one aimed at emphasizing Republican support for Israel and dividing Democrats between those who want to support President Joe Biden’s decision to pause the delivery of a shipment of bombs to Israel and those who prefer to maintain Washington’s unconditional support for Tel Aviv’s war.

Despite reports that up to 40 Democrats could go against Biden and support the bill, in the end, only 16 voted for it. Three Republicans — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — joined with the rest of the Democratic caucus in opposition.

To be sure, if the legislation — led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) — were to become law, it would be consequential, as it would restrict the budgets of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the withheld weapons. But after Biden pledged to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk, senate Democratic leadership said it would not it take up.

There are plenty of policy, political, and legal reasons to oppose the legislation.

“Congressman Calvert’s bill would wipe away decades of US law and policy that set clear human rights and humanitarian standards for all recipients of US weapons. No country — including Israel — should get special exemptions from these standards,” John Ramming Chappel of the Center for Civilians in Conflict said in a press release on Tuesday. “No legislator who cares about human rights or the rule of law should support this proposal.”

“Under this bill, it may not be possible for the U.S. to even debate whether or not arms should be provided to units that have committed gross violations of human rights, and would seem to suggest that the U.S. cannot deny anything Israel might request, however inappropriate, from cluster bombs to ballistic missiles,” added former State Department official Josh Paul.

But some Democrats who oppose passage have instead argued that it would restrict the president’s ability to freely conduct foreign policy.

“The legislation would constitute an unprecedented limitation on President Biden’s executive authority and administrative discretion to implement U.S. foreign policy,” said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, in a note urging her caucus to oppose the proposal. “It prohibits the Biden Administration from withholding or suspending United States arms transfers to Israel. (...) The legislation eliminates any executive oversight or control on the flow of taxpayer funded U.S. arms.”

The administration repeated this line of thinking in its own statement, saying that the bill “would undermine the President’s ability to execute an effective foreign policy,” and could raise serious concerns about infringement on the President’s authorities under Article II of the Constitution, including his duties as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and his power to conduct foreign relations.”

Other lawmakers offered more substantive disagreement with the policy. “]P]assing H.R. 8369 and attempting to rubber-stamp all arms sales to Israel regardless of the circumstances isn’t only reckless and short-sighted, it’s also an affront to our national security,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) in a statement. “It would also supersede and nullify the Leahy Law that requires human rights vetting on security cooperation and assistance programs. We have to stay true to our values, especially when it’s difficult to do so.”

As is the case with the Israel Security Assistance Support Act, in the rare instances where Congress does decide to use a check on the president’s powers it is when the executive takes steps to claw militarization back.

During the Trump years, members of Congress from both parties passed a series of measures aimed at either expressing disapproval or restricting the president’s ability to wind down the American military presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and Germany.

The step that the Biden administration is taking is even smaller. The “pause” on shipments announced earlier this month is a blip in Washington’s continued support for Israel’s war, as the White House itself has consistently made clear. Administration spokespeople have walked back the significance of the decision, saying that Israel is still receiving the “vast majority” of what they need. The recent NSM-20 report from the State Department to Congress concluded that the United States was not required by law to suspend arms transfers to Israel. And on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the administration had notified Congress of a new $1 billion weapons deal.


Israeli soldiers prepare shells near a mobile artillery unit, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Israel, January 2, 2024. (REUTERS/Amir Cohen)
Israeli soldiers prepare shells near a mobile artillery unit, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Israel, January 2, 2024. (REUTERS/Amir Cohen)
Reporting | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

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.