Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) signaled on Sunday that a Democrat-controlled Congress should move immediately to choke off funding for U.S. military operations in Iran, even with American forces still deployed in the region.
Speaking with Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream, Khanna made clear he would vote to halt all appropriations for continued military action in the ongoing conflict with Iran. According to The Daily Wire, his comments underscored a growing willingness on the Left to use Congress power of the purse to constrain U.S. force projection abroad, regardless of the risks to American personnel.
The exchange began when Bream asked Khanna about a controversial ad from Rebellion PAC backing Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, which tied rising U.S. living costs to aid sent to Israel. Khanna declined to denounce the spot, saying instead that he and El-Sayed had both disagreed with the ad.
Bream noted that disagreement fell short of outright condemnation, but Khanna quickly pivoted away from the political messaging. He shifted to energy prices and foreign policy, claiming that high gas prices were solely the result of the Iran war and promising immediate relief if Democrats seized control of Congress.
Khanna argued that a Democrat majority would act on day one to end all funding for the Iran War, presenting it as a straightforward lever to lower costs at the pump. Bream pressed him on the practical implications, asking, You say day one, does that mean defunding operations would you defund U.S. military operations while we have assets in that region?
I would stop the funding the House and the Senate should stop the funding for any further actions in the Iran War, Khanna replied, explicitly endorsing a hard cutoff even as U.S. forces remain in harms way. Thats what we did to stop the Vietnam War, and we need to stop this war in Iran. And by the way, the president cant veto that. The House and the Senate have the power on the appropriations bills.
Khanna did not grapple with the obvious national security concern: that abruptly cutting funds while American troops and assets are still engaged could embolden Tehran and its proxies and increase the danger to U.S. service members. His stance reflects a broader progressive impulse to use domestic economic anxiety as justification for rapid military disengagement, even when such moves risk undermining American strength abroad and constraining the next administrations abilitypotentially under President Donald Trumpto confront hostile regimes from a position of deterrent power.
Login