Where Democrats Can Thwart Trump’s Foreign Policy

The midterm elections gave Democrats majorities in the House and Senate. That changes their role from a largely constrained opposition into a force that can shape foreign policy through Congress. The shift matters because the executive branch has taken major military actions without congressional approval, including the Iran war and boat strikes.

Democrats will control the appropriations committees in both chambers. Those committees help draft annual military and foreign-aid spending bills. Democrats can attach conditions, reduce funding, or use negotiations to challenge White House policies. They do not automatically get everything they want, but control of spending creates substantial leverage.

The new Congress is expected to use that leverage on several fronts. Democrats had already promised to cut funding for the Iran war if they regained power. They could also target boat strikes, U.S. bases in the Middle East, the military presence in Europe, and support for Ukraine. Their influence begins when the new Congress is sworn in early next year.

The power of the purse is Congress’s authority to approve, deny, or condition government spending. Presidents may direct foreign policy, but military operations and overseas commitments require resources. Congress can influence those actions by deciding what money is available and what rules accompany it.

For example, Democrats could attach a funding prohibition to a must-pass spending bill. That provision could block money for the Iran war or the alleged drug-boat strikes. Congress could also decide whether to fund rebuilding damaged Gulf bases, moving them elsewhere, maintaining forces in Europe, or sending additional aid to Ukraine.

This power does not guarantee control. The president and Congress still have to negotiate, and a spending bill can become politically difficult. Yet appropriations give lawmakers a concrete bargaining tool. The article identifies funding as Democrats’ main way to challenge Trump’s foreign-policy choices after they take control of Congress.

A funding prohibition would tell federal agencies they cannot use appropriated money for a specified operation. If Democrats attach that restriction to a must-pass spending bill, the provision becomes part of legislation needed to keep government programs funded. That creates pressure because rejecting the bill can threaten broader government operations.

The article’s example is direct: Democrats could prohibit funds for the Iran war or the strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats. Brian Finucane called this the most effective mechanism for forcing an end to either operation. He compared the strategy with Congress nearly forcing a government shutdown in 1973 to end Richard Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia.

Success would depend on political will and Democrats’ willingness to “play hardball.” The president could oppose the restriction, and negotiations could become intense. Still, with control of both chambers and the appropriations process, Democrats could make continued funding much harder and potentially shut down the operations.

A president’s veto can be overridden only if two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate vote for the bill again. This high threshold prevents a simple majority from automatically overcoming presidential opposition. It makes veto power a significant obstacle even when one party controls both chambers.

For Democrats, the challenge is mathematical and political. Winning majorities does not mean holding two-thirds of either chamber. They would need substantial support from Republicans or other members to override a veto. Members might also disagree about military operations, spending restrictions, or the risks of creating a funding crisis.

The article emphasizes a different route: using must-pass appropriations bills as leverage. Democrats could negotiate restrictions before legislation reaches the president, rather than relying on a veto override afterward. The source does not provide the new majorities’ exact sizes, so it cannot establish whether Democrats could reach the two-thirds threshold. Their influence therefore depends heavily on bargaining and political will.

Democrats could use appropriations to influence several major foreign-policy decisions. The article highlights funding for the Iran war and alleged drug-boat strikes, as well as choices about the future of U.S. bases in the Middle East. These decisions matter because military action and overseas deployments depend on sustained resources.

Joshua Shifrinson noted that Gulf bases heavily damaged during the Iran war may need rebuilding or relocation. Congress must decide whether to fund repairs or move installations elsewhere. Spending bills could also affect Trump administration plans to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. Democrats have strongly opposed those plans.

Ukraine is another major target. Democrats have criticized the White House’s limited support for Kyiv and efforts to reduce economic penalties on Moscow. They signaled that a congressional majority could speed new aid packages. Through funding conditions and negotiations, Democrats could push U.S. policy toward continued European engagement and stronger support for Ukraine.

Congressional oversight is the process of examining how the executive branch uses its authority and public money. Committees can hold hearings, request documents, question officials, investigate decisions, and publish findings. Oversight does not automatically cancel an operation, but it can reveal facts and create accountability.

For the actions described here, committees could examine the legal basis for the Iran war and boat strikes, the intelligence behind alleged drug-trafficking claims, and the costs of military operations. They could also question officials about damaged Gulf bases, plans for Europe, and decisions affecting Ukraine. Committee control would give Democrats agenda-setting power.

Oversight would complement, rather than replace, appropriations. Hearings and investigations could build public and congressional pressure before spending bills are written. They could also document executive actions for later legislative or legal challenges. The article focuses mainly on funding, so it does not describe specific oversight plans, but committee control would expand Democrats’ ability to scrutinize the White House.

The U.S. system divides authority so military power and public money do not rest entirely with the president. The president commands the armed forces and conducts executive policy. Congress makes laws, authorizes or restricts spending, and has constitutional responsibilities connected to war and national defense. The division is designed to create checks and accountability.

That structure explains why appropriations matter in this article. A president may order operations, but Congress can decide whether money continues flowing to them. Congress can also attach conditions to spending bills. This creates a practical balance between executive action and legislative control, even when the president acts without prior congressional approval.

The article presents Trump’s Iran war and boat strikes as examples of executive power being used without congressional approval. Democratic control of Congress could restore some legislative influence through funding decisions. Oversight, negotiations, and spending restrictions would not erase the president’s role, but they could limit or redirect how foreign policy is carried out.