The Senate took a historic vote on Tuesday.
For the first time since 2010, the chamber rejected a procedural measure to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual bill that sets the topline for defense spending.
The vote failed along party lines, with every Democrat present voting no. Democratic leadership cited the ongoing war on Iran as the primary justification for delaying the bill’s progress.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote, “Donald Trump is dragging America deeper into a war in Iran with no authorization, no plan, and no exit strategy. Democrats will not go along.” The question is, for how long?
Political Dynamics
If Senate Democrats supported this week’s measure, they would have advanced a defense bill to approve $1.14 trillion in defense spending amid a deeply unpopular war on Iran, months before the midterm elections. According to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll released Thursday morning, 68% of Americans think the Iran War wasn’t worth fighting.
Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, supported the bill in committee and signaled openness to advancing it on the floor. He ultimately joined his caucus in voting no.
The bill excludes $350 billion in defense spending that the White House requested outside of the NDAA, which would bring the defense budget to $1.5 trillion. In May, nearly six in ten Americans thought that figure was too high. Since then, the administration has requested another $67 billion in supplemental funding for the Iran War.
War Opposition, Or Lack Thereof
In the lead up to the war, the president ordered the largest naval buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, assembling two aircraft carriers and 16 surface warships in the region.
On January 30, Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a war powers resolution directing the president “to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.” Sen. Schumer cosponsored the bill on February 25, a week after senior officials said that strikes were imminent and three days before President Trump ordered them.
Sen. Schumer and House Minority Leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), have repeatedly called for the war’s end, but strongly criticized the June “Memorandum of Understanding” with Iran, a diplomatic attempt to institute a ceasefire. Sen. Schumer took issue with the memorandum’s proposed $300 billion in reconstruction and economic development funding for Iran, falsely implying that U.S. taxpayers would pay for it.
When President Trump explored diplomatic engagement with Iran last year, Sen. Schumer accused the president of making “side deals” behind the backs of Congress and the American people. He said, “when it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot. One day he sounds tough, the next day he’s backing off.” The senator demanded that Congress approve any deal with the country. A decade ago, he opposed President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
The Path Forward
Given this backdrop, what happens next on the NDAA is uncertain. The Senate may attempt to reconsider the measure to advance the NDAA before August recess, which begins August 10. It may also return to the NDAA in September or after the midterm elections. The most plausible path may be to skip floor debate altogether, allowing lawmakers to bypass a full Senate floor debate. This may be ideal for Democratic leadership, given that some Senate Democrats opposed the bill in part because it includes provisions related to the U.S. relationship to Israel.
In a letter sent to Senate Democrats last week, Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged their colleagues to block progression of the NDAA until the Senate debates provisions related to military collaboration and intelligence sharing with Israel. Members highlighted legislative language to establish the “U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” which would further integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries.
Party leaders have largely avoided direct engagement on the provision. However, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries consistently support arms sales and military aid to Israel. Most recently, Sen. Schumer joined Republicans to block a proposal to halt arms sales to the country. On Wednesday, Rep. Jeffries voted against an amendment to the State Department funding bill to cut military aid to Israel. 103 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment, aligning with 74% of Democratic voters who oppose providing additional economic and military support to the country.
Past is Prologue
Public opinion is clear. The democratic base is increasingly critical of the U.S. relationship with Israel, and most Americans oppose the Iran War. Democratic leadership will likely face political consequences if they advance the bill as is, regardless of when they do it. The legislation’s passage would signal to taxpayers Congress’ tacit acceptance of a trillion-dollar-plus defense budget tied to an unpopular war.
Only time will tell how Democratic leadership decides to move forward. The last time the Senate rejected a measure to proceed on NDAA was 2010, when disputes over tax cuts, the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy and the DREAM Act, which would have offered undocumented children a pathway to U.S. citizenship, delayed passage of the NDAA until after the 2010 midterm elections.
Democrats lost the House and narrowed their majority in the Senate. In the lame-duck session, Congress passed the NDAA only after dropping the DREAM Act from the bill, cutting a deal to extend the Bush‑era tax cuts, and advancing repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in separate stand‑alone legislation rather than through the defense bill. A similar moment may be approaching.