Can Dems harness Iran war anger to sink Trump’s military budget?

Congress returned to Washington DC this week after its July 4 recess, with tensions over the ongoing conflict with Iran dominating public discourse. President Donald Trump had recently declared the memorandum of understanding with Iran “over” and both sides had exchanged attacks, bringing the war into sharp focus. Congressional Democrats, largely united in their opposition to the conflict, saw an opportunity to leverage their position to challenge the administration’s agenda. On Tuesday, all present Democratic senators voted to block debate over the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes Pentagon funding. The bill required 60 votes to move forward, but it failed by a narrow margin—50 to 46. This outcome marked a significant shift from previous years, when the NDAA typically passed with broad bipartisan support. Signs of division emerged earlier in June, when nine Democrats defied tradition and voted against advancing the bill out of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Some of these lawmakers framed their resistance as a direct response to the war in Iran. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) warned that the NDAA would “effectively green light Trump's illegal Iran war.” Similarly, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who usually supports the NDAA, stated he would oppose the bill because Congress had not yet held a vote to authorize the war. These statements underscored a growing concern among some Democrats that the administration had bypassed proper legislative procedures to fund military actions abroad. Republican leaders accused Democrats of using the national security issue as a political tool. SASC Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called the opposition a “new low,” suggesting that the Democrats' stance was more about partisan posturing than genuine concern for national security. Meanwhile, the Trump administration sought to secure a $1.5 trillion defense budget, raising questions about how such a large sum would be allocated amid ongoing conflicts. Complicating matters further was the lack of transparency regarding the financial implications of the war with Iran. Jules Hurst, who testified before SASC about becoming the Pentagon comptroller, admitted he had no current information on the $29 billion estimated cost of the war. Hurst had ceased serving in his role as acting comptroller since May 20, highlighting a gap in oversight and accountability. Sources indicated that Republicans’ handling of funding bills had created an environment in which Democrats might delay or even halt defense appropriations. With Democrats seemingly committed to blocking the NDAA until issues related to Iran war authorization are resolved, the future of the must-pass bill remains uncertain. A senior congressional aide noted that the Trump administration had not adequately consulted Congress on the Iran conflict or engaged Democrats in broader budget discussions, leading to stalled legislative progress. Additionally, a group of senators, led by Van Hollen and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), expressed concerns about an amendment to the NDAA that would deepen U.S.-Israeli intelligence integration. Last week, they sent a letter to fellow senators urging them to withhold support for the legislation until further deliberation on these provisions could occur. The timing of the vote, just days after Trump announced the termination of the Iran agreement, influenced the decision-making process. Supporters of ending the war viewed the vote as a sign that public sentiment was turning against the conflict, and that Congress should continue applying pressure on the administration. One senior Democratic Senate staffer remarked that the war was “incredibly unpopular with the American people” and that Democrats were justified in using this moment to assert their position. The National Iranian American Council’s president, Jamal Abdi, issued a statement urging lawmakers not to advance any “other major national legislation” unless the administration resumed negotiations with Iran and reached a resolution. This call reflects a broader push within certain advocacy groups to tie legislative action to diplomatic outcomes.