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 wars—”great nations do not fight endless wars,” he said in his State of the Union in February—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 Trump’s assertion of support to the Arab Coalition in Yemen is a positive signal of US resolve towards America’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 people—80 percent of the country’s population—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 Resolution—spearheaded by him and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senate—“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, let’s build our capabilities here at home. On that issue, I think you can get broad consensus.”

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

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