White House Thwarts Bill to End DADT Funds?

President Obama has said repeatedly he thinks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is bad policy that “hurts our national security,” but he wants Congress to take the lead in rescinding the law. We can all see the logic here: It would continue a terrible Bush-era precedent (not to mention reek of hypocrisy) if Obama were to issue an executive order eliminating an act of Congress.

We all understand that logic. But I’m having trouble understanding this: Florida House Democrat Alcee Hastings introduced an amendment this week to a military appropriations bill that would cut off funds for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell investigations. The next day, he says, colleagues in Congress and in the White House urged him to withdraw the amendment, which he did.

Why would the White House get in Congress’ way? The Senate has already committed to hearings on DADT; the House’s bill to eliminate the policy has 165 cosponsors. It’s not as if quashing Hastings’ amendment will slow the momentum. Or will it? Because what kind of message does this send to House members unsure about whether or not to support DADT’s end?

Last night, Hastings tried to make sense of it with Rachel Maddow.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

H/t: ThinkProgress.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.