Ro Khanna calls on Democrats to reclaim identity as ‘the anti-war party'
In the days since Donald Trump authorized strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and then forged a shaky ceasefire agreement, Congressman Ro Khanna has called on Democrats to reclaim a political identity he says they lost: being the party of peace.
'Now is the time for the Democratic party to be the anti-war party – the party against wars of choice,' Khanna said in an interview. 'We should be the party of peace abroad, good jobs at home. Donald Trump took that from us in 2016 and 2024 and my leadership this past week has been trying to reclaim the anti-war mantle.'
On Capitol Hill, Khanna is at the center of a renewed push to reassert congressional authority over war-making. But away from the House floor, the California progressive, viewed as a potential 2028 contender, is challenging Democrats to act like an opposition party determined to prevent another 'forever war'.
It is, in his view, both a morally correct position and politically wise one.
'The reality is that the Washington beltway is out of touch with where most Americans are,' he said. 'Most Americans are very opposed to these wars. They're opposed to this increase of defense contractor spending. They want to focus on building jobs here, building prosperity here.'
Recent polling by CNN and Reuters/Ipsos found that a majority disapproved of the president's decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran.
Khanna argues that the Democratic party's foreign policy – especially the Biden administration's unwavering support for Israel's war in Gaza – has damaged its standing with young voters. He sees a chance to rebuild trust with those disappointed by Trump – a president who once said his success would be judged by 'perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into', but has instead backed military strikes and later mused about the possibility of 'regime change' in Iran.
'This is something that can help us build a majority coalition – help us win back disaffected young men who don't want to see more wars,' he said. 'They want to see investments in their communities and it should really be something the Democratic Party should get out in front of.'
It's not a new argument for Khanna, who launched one of the first anti-Iraq war primary challenges against a sitting House Democrat in 2004. During Trump's first term, he partnered with Senator Bernie Sanders and a coalition of anti-interventionist Republicans to pass a war powers resolution – the first ever to reach a president's desk – which Trump ultimately vetoed. The measure aimed to end US military support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen.
'What the American people want is for politicians and leaders to stand up and say, 'I'm going to take on the defense establishment. I'm going to take on the foreign policy bloc. I'm going to stand up against these wars,'' Khanna said. 'They want us to speak with clarity, not process arguments.'
This time, Khanna has joined forces with Republican congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, to sponsor a war powers resolution that would require congressional approval before the US military engages in further hostilities against Iran.
According to Khanna, the resolution that, as of Wednesday, had nearly 70 Democratic co-sponsors, is on track to come up for a vote in mid July. But its fate is uncertain. Massie, who has faced withering criticism from Trump over his support for the resolution, has suggested the measure might not be necessary if the peace agreement endures.
Khanna hopes Trump's ceasefire holds – but he does not believe that matters of war and peace should be left to the whims of a mercurial president.
'We need to have this resolution in case, over the next few weeks, [Trump] decides to threaten Iran again or gets pushed into Iran again,' he said. 'And more importantly, it should be given a vote so that we know that Congress is going to be willing to step up in the future when he's tempted to go into war.'
Nearly all of Trump's Republican allies on Capitol Hill have rallied around the president, arguing that he had the right to order the strikes as commander-in-chief. On Tuesday, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said that he believed the War Powers Resolution, the law Congress passed in 1973, overriding a presidential veto from Richard Nixon, to require congressional authorization for the use of military force, was itself 'unconstitutional'.
The White House has hailed the strikes as a strategic success – a show of strength that blunted Iran's nuclear ambitions at minimal cost. US officials characterized Iran's retaliatory missile attack on a US base in Qatar as largely symbolic.
But an initial US intelligence assessment has suggested that Iran's nuclear program was not 'obliterated' as Trump claimed, but set back only by a few months. It also found that much of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon was moved before the strikes. The White House has rejected the report as 'flat-out wrong'.
Citing both the intelligence findings and signs of hardline resistance inside Iran, Khanna warns the risk of escalation remains high. Trump has threatened further bombing if Iran restarts its nuclear program, and what Khanna calls the 'neocon wing' is already agitating for more aggressive action – including talk of regime change in Tehran.
The Senate may vote as soon as this week on a similar resolution led by Tim Kaine, a Democrat of Virginia. Kaine has said he expects the measure to receive the support of all but one Democrat and at least some Republicans, but it remains unclear if it will garner enough votes to pass.
'Too many members of Congress, especially the tough-talking Iran hawks on the Republican side, they're OK with war, but by God, they're too chicken to vote for it,' Kaine said, speaking shortly before Khanna on a Tuesday night live stream hosted by the progressive activist group MoveOn.
A growing number of Democrats are now publicly calling Trump's decision to strike Iran not only dangerous, but unconstitutional – an act of war carried out without congressional authorization. For Khanna, it's a sign his party may finally be rediscovering its anti-war roots.
'In the beginning, there was a muddled message and silence,' he said of the Democrats' response. 'But I think as the week has progressed, more and more people are coming around to my view.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Updated Senate bill slashes wind and solar incentives – and adds a new tax
An updated draft of the Senate's megabill text slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy – and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. The initial draft released by Senate Republicans earlier this month cut the credit for any wind and solar projects that did not 'begin construction' by certain dates, while the latest version bases incentives on when projects actually begin producing electricity — a much higher bar to clear. The first draft gave any project that began construction this year full credit, any project that began construction next year 60 percent credit and any project that began construction in 2027 20 percent of the credit, before they were phased out thereafter. The new legislation instead says that the credits will only apply to facilities that begin producing electricity before the end of 2027. In addition, it imposes a new tax on some wind and solar projects that are placed in service after 2027. The projects that will be taxed if a certain percentage of the value of their components come from China. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including renewable energy. These subsidies were expected to massively reduce the U.S.' planet warming emissions. The GOP's cuts to the credits are expected to severely curtail those gains. If they pass, the cuts represent a win for the party's right flank, which has pushed for major cuts to the credits, and a loss for it's more moderate wing which has called for a slower phaseout. The renewables lobby slammed the changes as hampering the sector. 'In what can only be described as 'midnight dumping,' the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry. It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a written statement. 'These new taxes will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment,' he added.


Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senate Republicans revise Trump's policy bill, scrounging for votes to pass it
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republican leaders in the Senate are rushing to shore up support for the legislation so they can quickly pass it and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline Trump has set. An initial vote in the Senate could come later Saturday. Advertisement Party leaders are trying to appease two flanks of their conference. Some, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said they could not support it without greater reassurances that the Medicaid cuts it contains would not hurt rural hospitals in their states. And fiscal hawks, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have said they do not want to back legislation that would only increase the deficit. Advertisement The core of the bill remains the same. It would extend tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 and add some new ones Trump campaigned on, while slashing spending on safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. The biggest tax cuts and the biggest changes to those anti-poverty programs remained intact. Taken together, the bill would likely increase federal debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, though lawmakers are still shaping the bill and waiting on an official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. With Trump demanding quick action, Republicans in Congress have intensified their efforts to push it through to enactment even as many of them — including several who voted for it in the House — have been open about their reservations about a measure they are concerned could be a political loser. The revisions released early Saturday were designed to allay some of those concerns. Senators, including Tillis and Susan Collins, R-Maine, had pressed for the inclusion of a rural hospital fund to help health care providers absorb the impact of a provision that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to finance their Medicaid programs. Despite their pushback, that provider tax change remains in the bill, though lawmakers have delayed its implementation by one year. It is unclear whether a $25 billion compensation fund will be enough to win their votes. Collins had suggested that she wanted to provide as much as $100 billion to ensure that rural hospitals, which operate on thin margins, were not adversely affected. Advertisement But it appeared to be enough to win over at least one Republican holdout who had expressed concern about the Medicaid cuts — Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he would vote for the bill and was confident that changes benefit his state at least in the short term. A new provision allowing 'individuals in a noncontiguous state' to be exempt from enforcing new work requirements imposed on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, appeared aimed at mollifying Murkowski of Alaska. Her state would be hit with billions of dollars in nutrition assistance costs as a result of the legislation, and she had cited the provision as one of her chief concerns. The bill also includes new health provisions designed to benefit Alaska, as well as new tax benefits for fishers in the state's waters. Some of the changes were aimed at appealing to members of the House, where Republicans from high-tax states like New York have threatened to sink the bill if it does not include a substantial increase in the state and local tax deduction, currently capped at $10,000. Senate Republicans, skeptical of the deduction, still ultimately decided to match the House plan to lift the cap to $40,000. But while the House made the increase permanent, the Senate keeps it for only five years, allowing it to snap back to $10,000 in 2030. The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Trump and other conservatives had explicitly called for this past week. It remains to be seen whether those changes could cause friction with Republicans who have publicly supported green energy credits, including Tillis, Murkowski and Sen. John Curtis of Utah. Advertisement Previously, the Senate proposed allowing companies that were building wind and solar farms to claim a tax credit worth at least 30% of their costs if they started construction this year, with a phaseout over two years. But the revised bill would require companies place their projects 'in service' by the end of 2027 to claim the tax break. The bill would also impose additional taxes on renewable energy projects that receive 'material assistance' from China, even if they don't qualify for the credit. Because China dominates global supply chains, those new fees could affect a large number of projects. The new Senate measure would more quickly end tax credits for electric vehicles, doing away with them by Sept. 30. It would also slow the phaseout of a lucrative tax credit to make hydrogen fuels, allowing such projects to qualify if construction were started by the end of 2027, instead of by the end of this year. The bill also includes a provision written by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of federal land across the American West in order to build housing. Earlier versions of that proposal that would have auctioned off even more acreage had drawn fierce opposition from conservative hunters and outdoorsmen, and Republican senators from Montana and Idaho had said they would not vote for it. This article originally appeared in


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nikki Haley hails Trump for US strikes but warns ‘Iran is not done'
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley offered her first praise for President Trump in several months in a Monday op-ed in Israel Hayom, an Israeli right-wing newspaper. She congratulated his decision to strike three Iranian nuclear sites but warned of further retaliation from Iran. 'Those in America that worry about why these strikes took place should understand that those strikes were a move to keep Americans safer. That was a move to take out one of the threats that Iran has used against Americans for years,' Haley wrote in the outlet owned by Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson. Israel Hayom is distributed in Hebrew and is also available online in English. The op-ed is a rare public appearance for Haley, who has largely faded from public view since the 2024 election. When she has spoken on Trump's foreign policy decisions in recent months, she has often criticized them, panning him for a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and slamming his acceptance of a Qatari jet. In the opinion piece, however, Haley praised Trump's decision as 'very well done' while arguing that the United States should continue to be hawkish on Iran for the sake of both America and Israel. 'A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America,' she wrote, arguing that the chance of diplomacy with Tehran was thin. 'They always say they want to talk, but the action doesn't match what they want to do,' she wrote. 'Trump was right that while you could kick this can down the road if you wanted, the threat would only get bigger.' She also took aim at the United Nations after Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the strikes, accusing the international arbiter of failing to condemn Iran's moves on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Haley finished by warning that America and Israel both needed to remain on guard. 'Americans need to be vigilant of our military bases in the region. We need to be vigilant of cyber attacks that could come our way through Iran. Iran is not done,' she wrote. As Trump's ambassador to the United Nations during his first term, Haley made the case both to him and to the global stage that the United States should back out of its 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. In the 2024 Republican presidential primary, during which she attempted to criticize the president, she also positioned herself as both a staunch defender of Israel and a Middle East hawk. After being the last of Trump's primary challengers to bow out, Haley failed to secure a place in his administration (she claimed she wanted no part in it). She is currently at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, and making her way around the speaker circuit.