Trump’s Second Veto Keeps America Involved in Yemen’s Bloody Civil War

“A painful missed opportunity.”

President Donald Trump at the White House on April 15.Andrew Harnik/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Despite President Donald Trump’s vocal opposition to America’s longstanding warsā€””great nations do not fight endless wars,” he said in his State of the Union in Februaryā€”yesterday he vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have ended US support for the Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen, a conflict the United Nations says has caused the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Trump’s second-ever veto strikes down legislation that would have invoked the War Powers Resolution to pull the United States out of a foreign conflict for the first time the resolution was passed in 1973. 

“From a president elected on the promise of putting a stop to our endless wars, this veto is a painful missed opportunity,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in a statement following the veto. Khanna’s War Powers Resolution passed in the House earlier this month, and a version of which the Senate approved in March. On Monday, Khanna told me that he remained hopeful that the president would sign off on the legislation, or at least agree to a meeting to discuss it, remarking that the measure was “consistent with his view in calling for greater restraint in our foreign policy.” He noted that his bill had the support of some of Trump’s most ardent supporters in Congress, including Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Mark Meadows (R-NC), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Even Breitbart published an article that framed the bill positively and referred to the “push from globalist forces for [Trump] to veto it.”

“My argument to the president is that this war was started in 2015, so he’d be ending a war that began before he assumed office,” Khanna told me. “It’s absolutely historic that we passed the War Powers Resolution in both the House and the Senate for the first time in American history. The president could make history by signing this and be the first president in recent times to limit his own executive power.” Khanna said he thinks Trump’s “instincts” are more in line with his congressional allies in Congress, but that “he’s surrounded by [advisors] who have a much stronger view of the projection of executive power.”

The New York Times reported that National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposed the measure. In his veto message to the Senate, Trump pushed back against the congressional effort to tie his hands, writing, “This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future.”

The president’s comments earned praise from the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, a main Saudi ally in Yemen. On Twitter, he wrote, “President Trumpā€™s assertion of support to the Arab Coalition in Yemen is a positive signal of US resolve towards Americaā€™s allies,Common strategic interests are best served with this clear commitment.”

The four-year-old war has caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths and left 24 million peopleā€”80 percent of the country’s populationā€”in need of assistance. The country remains on the brink of famine, and one million people are suffering from a cholera outbreak. While the war has largely been defined by the Saudi-led coalition’s indiscriminate bombings and an aid and food blockade, the United States has supported Saudi Arabia with intelligence sharing, arms and ammunition, and until late last year, midair refueling for its planes.

Despite Trump’s veto, Khanna said the passage of a War Powers Resolutionā€”spearheaded by him and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senateā€”“sends a clear signal to the Saudis that they need to lift their blockade and allow humanitarian assistance into Yemen if they care about their relationship with Congress.”

“I am confident that this is a nation that is wary of war, that understands we have made a strategic blunder by being involved in as many wars overseas as we have,” Khanna said on Monday, noting the possibility of a veto. “There is a bipartisan emerging coalition that says enough with these bad, unstrategic wars, letā€™s build our capabilities here at home. On that issue, I think you can get broad consensus.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate