Who's allowed to launch an attack on another country? Just asking questions.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) joined Reason's Just Asking Questions podcast to discuss the War Powers Resolution he's co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), which would require President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before continuing to drop bombs in Iran. He also discussed Trump's remarks that the governments of Israel and Iran "don't know what the fuck they are doing" after they ignored his call for a ceasefire, whether or not the administration likely destroyed Iran's nuclear program, and why he's eager to work with the antiestablishment right to rein in war powers and get corrupt money out of Congress.

Chapters:

00:00—Podcast theme

00:28—Introducing the War Powers Resolution and Iran airstrikes

05:19—Trump's war instincts and the MAGA anti-war base

10:10—The diplomatic alternative to military action on Iran

15:48—Israel-Iran ceasefire and Trump's response

19:30—Trump's influence over Netanyahu and Middle East peace prospects

23:05—The bipartisan push to rein in executive war powers

27:33—The Democratic Party's anti-war identity crisis

30:29—Building left-right anti-establishment alliances

34:11—Rebuilding trust in government and American purpose

39:49—Reform priorities: money in politics and war powers

Transcript:

This is an AI-generated transcript. Check against the original before quoting.

Liz Wolfe: Who's allowed to launch an attack on another country? Just Asking Questions. Representative Ro Khanna of California is here with us today to talk about his War Powers Resolution that he's co-sponsoring with Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, who's also been a guest on the show many times before, which would require President Trump to seek congressional approval before continuing to drop bombs in Iran. Congressman Khanna, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Rep. Ro Khanna: Thank you for having me.

Zach Weissmueller: So, here's the text of your resolution. It says:

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And you list a few facts such as that "Congress has the sole power to declare war," "Congress has not declared war." Therefore, "forces shall be removed by the president if Congress so directs." And the kind of summary statement here is:

Congress hereby directs the president to terminate the use of the United States armed forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.

So given that Trump has already dropped bombs on Iranian nuclear sites without consulting Congress, what are you worried could still transpire at this point if Congress doesn't act to pass this or the similar bill in the Senate being offered by Tim Kaine?

Khanna: There's a fight for Donald Trump's decision-making here. And the fight is between the neocons—people like Lindsey Graham, who want regime change in Iran; people like Netanyahu, who want regime change in Iran; people like Brett McGurk, who have been itching for that kind of regime change, who cheer-led for the war in Iraq. And on the other side, there is the lot in the MAGA base who do not want another war in the Middle East, who do not want more of our money spent in missiles in Iran or troops in the Middle East.

And we saw that Donald Trump was listening to both, in every day. Now, I believe that it was our war powers resolution and the activism of the MAGA base and other voices that convinced him not to escalate after the strikes. But he could be persuaded again to go in or say, "Well, we didn't destroy enough of the nuclear facility" or "we didn't get all the nuclear fuel." And that's why it's important that he hear from the anti-war base of his own party and from the country.

Wolfe: It seems like this is kind of an opportunity to give Trump some amount of credit, if I may be so bold, because in the past, we've seen many Republican administrations that are much more firmly planted on the neocon side. Whereas it's almost like Trump has devils on his shoulders and angels on his shoulders—you know, depending on your bona fides, you can decide which side is which. But there's a real push and pull, a real tension within him as to whether the sort of neocon wing or the very anti-war wing should win out. Are you heartened to see this tension present in a Republican president right now?

Khanna: I appreciate that he didn't escalate and that we have a ceasefire. I agree with you that there is a tension within his base. I do think that many people in his base felt let down that he struck initially in Iran. That's not what they voted for. It's the first time I saw any real crack in his base. I mean, the tariffs upset some of the business leaders, but this really upset people who voted for him, who said, "You're not prioritizing us. You're not prioritizing jobs here. You're engaged in the same kind of war games that other presidents have."

But the place, though, that I would hope that he'd develop is that it's not enough to stay out of war. You also have to engage in top diplomacy. And the reality is I believe that we need to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. We shouldn't have gotten out, in my opinion, of the JCPOA. At the very least, we should have worked within it to strengthen it. We did get out; that led to enrichment. And now the question is, how are we going to prevent Iran from racing to the nuclear bomb? And there, I think that the president needs to engage in diplomacy that previous Republican presidents, actually, like Bush Sr. and even Ronald Reagan, had more of a commitment to. We haven't seen that from the president.

Weissmueller: I want to bring up a tweet from one of your colleagues here. This is Congressman Greg Steube from Florida, he's a Republican, because I think he lays out the case for why he thinks Trump should have taken this action and why he legally is allowed to take this action. He says that:

"President Trump has full constitutional authority to take military action against Iran's nuclear program without a formal declaration of war. Article II, Section 2 empowers the Commander in Chief to use the armed forces to defend national interests and respond to imminent threats. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows a 60-day window plus a 30-day withdrawal period as long as Congress is notified within 48 hours."

Presumably he's saying that Iran having a nuclear bomb itself posed an imminent threat to U.S. security, therefore justifying this unilateral action. What's your response to that?

Khanna: Well, it just didn't. I mean, even his own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said it was not imminent. I don't think that any ordinary American believes that Iran was on the cusp of launching missiles against American troops or against America. If anything, now Americans are more at threat than they were.

Now, he hadn't violated the War Powers Resolution. He did give notice to Congress, and now we get to vote. But his initial acts were a violation of Article I of the Constitution, in my view, but there was no reason for him to be engaged in an overseas war without first coming to Congress for a declaration of war or authorization of war.

The War Powers Resolution is sort of a remedy.

It's when the president engages in something that we think is unconstitutional. It says, "Ok, you now come to Congress and you have to get something resolved within 60 days." But that doesn't mean that he had the authority in the first place. And if you define the president's authority so broadly as anything in the national interest, you could go to war anywhere. That would basically deny Congress any approval. Now, what administrations have done is they basically said, "Ok, the only time they really have to get approval from Congress is if it's a dragged-out, prolonged war."

Frankly, Obama made that argument in Libya. That was wrong. Biden made that argument in striking Houthi ships in the Red Sea. That was wrong. Trump's making that argument in Iran.

But modern warfare is not these yearlong battles. And I don't think that the Constitution says, "Ok, give a quick military strike and no ground boots, and it's a quick war, then you don't need Congress. But if you have a long war, then you need Congress." But that's really how modern presidents have been operating. And Thomas Massie and I have called out presidents of both parties.

This is not a partisan issue. What Trump did is very similar to what Obama did in Libya. And I have great admiration for President Obama. So this is about reclaiming the Constitution.

Wolfe: It seems like one of the real significant strengths of this strike, using these bomb blasters in Fordow in Iran, is the fact that it was done seemingly with a lot of precision, but also very stealthily. Everybody was caught off guard by it to some degree. If Trump had sought congressional authorization, obviously that wouldn't have been the case. Do you still think that that is what he should have done?

Khanna: Yes. Donald Trump is a lot of things. He's not exactly stealth. He was on Truth Social saying he wants to assassinate Khamenei. He was saying that he's going to bomb them if they don't comply. So he could have gotten Congress's authorization at any time that he put the Truth Social post up. And he could have said, "Look, I have Congress who said I can do this at any time. Right now, I'm not choosing to do it. I'm doing it in two weeks." And then he could've attacked. And it would have had the same element of surprise. If anything, it would have strengthened his hand because he would have been seen as having congressional authorization.

And you know, the irony is I think he would've gotten congressional authorization. I would have opposed it, but he would've gotten it. So why didn't he come to Congress? Because he would've really heard from the anti-war MAGA base—the Tucker Carlsons, the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, the Thomas Massies.

And he didn't want to split the base. He didn't want that argument out there in front of the American people.

And frankly, Congress didn't want to assert itself because Congress doesn't want to vote on these things. Congress would rather the president take the blame. And this is why we've had a dysfunctional system since Iraq. Congress has basically punted on these issues.

Wolfe: That makes a lot of sense to me. I am curious, though. Something that you mentioned, I think a few times publicly, is that you do believe that it is a national security priority to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb, but that the way we're going about it—possibly starting another war in the Middle East—is not the appropriate solution.

Tell me, what is the appropriate solution?

Diplomacy, I think it's easy to sort of hand-wave about, and I am sympathetic to that. But what's the actual, you know, Trump was trying to hammer out a deal with Iran before this. It's not as if he hadn't attempted to exhaust the diplomacy options on the table. What was his actual recourse that would have been truly effective in stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? We can dispute the timeline and how imminent it was as much as we want, but I would love just a sense of what is the optimal approach that Trump should have taken?

Khanna: He was working on it. I supported him. And then Netanyahu bombed. I think Netanyahu wanted to force the hand not to let the diplomatic process play out. Look, Obama with the JCPOA showed what was possible at the time when the Iranian regime was stronger than it is now. They had agreed to not have any enriched uranium beyond 3.67 percent. They had limited it to Natanz. The IAEA did inspections up to 2018. They didn't find a single violation.

Now, the criticism of the JCPOA is that it didn't go after the ballistic missiles. And you could have come in and said, "We're going to try to get further concessions on the ballistic missiles." Obama got a UN resolution, but he didn't get verification. But we could get a system of verification because we did, the JCPOA when Iran was stronger.

And Iran has a lot of interests that they care about—the sanctions relief, being able to be seen as part of the international community of nations. So I do believe that Trump, with a yearlong diplomatic effort, could have achieved something. The irony is he's going to have to do the diplomacy now because Iran still has the nuclear fuel, and they still have the capability to make the bomb. So unless we're just going to allow Iran to become a nuclear power, or unless we're going to plan to strike them every six months, he's going to have to engage in diplomacy.

Weissmueller: So, yeah, you're referring to the fact that they did not wipe out all of their enriched uranium. There was even a report that was leaked earlier this week that their ability to continue enriching the uranium might still be intact. So you're viewing this as something that is less than the complete success and obliteration that the administration is characterizing it as.

Khanna: That's the evidence coming out from their own administration. JD Vance is saying they still have enough enriched uranium to possibly have 10 nuclear bombs. Their own Defense Intelligence Agency is saying that maybe they set the Iranians back three to four months. Plus, you can't bomb know-how. I mean, ultimately the Iranian people have the know-how. They have the scientists. So the question then is: How do you get them to not build a bomb? And the reality is you have to have independent verification—similar to the JCPOA—and you have to have a negotiation about what the characteristics and carrots are.

Wolfe: I'm no war advocate here—obviously, I work for Reason Magazine—but on the topic of the know-how, I would note that part of this operation was the taking out of, what was it, like the top seven most prominent nuclear scientists who had been working on these projects within Iran. What do you think of that? Do you think that ultimately set back diplomatic efforts to such a degree that it was a foolish thing to do? Or do you think those sort of targeted assassinations probably are helpful in dismantling the nuclear program?

Khanna: Well, I'm not for targeted assassinations, just in terms of what that means for a rules-based international order and the type of conflicts that it spurs. You know, the goal is that the graveyard is filled with people who thought themselves indispensable. I don't think that just getting rid of the top seven nuclear scientists in Iran is going to prevent the next generation from having the know-how. Maybe it slows them down, but it's not a decisive blow. And it's dangerous when you engage in this, because that gives license in Iran to say, "Ok, should they engage in assassination attempts against Americans or against Israelis? Should other countries be able to engage in those assassination attempts?"

This is why we have a rules-based order. Now, you could argue that there are exigent circumstances where that may be violated—if there was real intelligence and information seeing that American troops would have been struck or that our cities were at risk—then the Commander in Chief could make that determination, come to Congress, declare war. But I much rather that be through a formal process than through covert operations, as well.

We had the old Church Commission because we were so overextended in these covert operations with our intelligence agencies on assassination. America reformed that. And it's much better for us just to be upfront when we are attacking a country—that it is a war—because they violated certain norms. And that doesn't take away the element of surprise, but it's transparent to the American people.

Weissmueller: Trump called for a ceasefire earlier this week, which you have said you believe is in part because of this pressure that's been coming both from Congress and also from his own base. But he was very unhappy immediately after he called for that ceasefire, when Israel and Iran continued to lob missiles at each other. I want to just roll that clip for a moment.

(Trump News Clip)

Reporter: Do you believe that Iran violated the peace agreement and the ceasefire agreement? Do you believe that Iran is still committed to peace?

Donald Trump: Yeah, I do. They violated it, but Israel violated it too.

Reporter: Are you questioning if Israel was committed to it?

Donald Trump: Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, "Ok, now you have 12 hours," you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket. That didn't land. That was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land. I'm not happy about that.

You know what? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that?

Weissmueller: Obviously, a lot of frustration being expressed there. What do you make of what's going on here?

Khanna: Putting aside his colorful language, I'm glad that he actually stood up and said, "Stop bombing," to both Netanyahu and to Iran, and I support the ceasefire. And I'm hoping that he will tell Netanyahu to stop bombing in Gaza too. I mean, there are huge humanitarian concerns there. The aid isn't getting in. Palestinians, as they go to aid sites—the Gaza Foundation, the humanitarian foundation—many are getting shot. And so Trump—good for him for saying to stop the bombing. And I hope he'll tell Netanyahu to stop bombing the in Gaza as well.

Weissmueller: How much influence do you think Trump actually has over that situation? Because now we're just seeing this… It was unclear how this even transpired from the get-go—like whether Trump explicitly approved the initial strike on Iran, or if Netanyahu kind of just went ahead and then Trump jumped on board afterward. Do you have a sense of who's driving the ship at this point?

Khanna: We are the superpower. The question is just whether we choose to exercise that power. When he did, with that angry clip, you saw Netanyahu back away right away and didn't engage in the escalation that was reported they were planning on. Literally an hour after he made that statement, there was a statement that came out saying Netanyahu and Israel agreed to the ceasefire, isn't going to retaliate.

He's authorized $14 billion of sales since he's been president to Israel. They are dependent on the United States. If he tells them to stop, they will stop—as we just saw. This was a clear example. And the question is not who calls the shots; it's whether Donald Trump wants to spend his political capital or make a decision to tell Netanyahu to stop. And I hope he will.

Wolfe: Yeah, you know, it seems like you're advocating for Trump to use a little bit more of his influence with Netanyahu and to possibly take a little bit of a tougher approach with him. What specifically does that look like to you?

Khanna: It means that he needs to tell Netanyahu to stop the bombing in Gaza. He needs to, at the same time, demand clearly the hostage release. I think he can get the hostages. And then he should convene a Middle East peace summit. I mean, he's so fixated on winning the Nobel Prize. Bring the Saudis, bring Egypt, bring Jordan, bring UAE, bring people from Palestinian civil society and Israel, and say, "Look, we're going to have a non-Hamas government in Palestine and Gaza."

It's going to need the protection and troops from some of the surrounding Arab countries so that Hamas doesn't infiltrate again. And then that government needs to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish democratic state, and Israel needs to recognize the new Palestinian state. I believe that is achievable, especially given that he does have decent relationships with some of the other Arab countries. But he has to be willing to first get the bombing to stop and the hostages released. I believe he can do that.

Weissmueller: Do you think that's what Trump—and I guess more importantly, not more importantly but maybe as importantly—his close advisors want? Do they want to work something out with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, or is there a different sort of vision for the Middle East?

Khanna: It's unclear. I mean, sometimes he talks about having Gaza developed into commercial property. Obviously, that's not recognizing Palestinian self-determination. But if he's serious about peace, he can get Netanyahu to stop. Now, it's a harder thing to get Netanyahu to stop in Gaza than to stop in Iran because Ben Gvir, and Smotrich, and part of Netanyahu's cabinet, don't want him to stop and would threaten to leave the government. And that's why it's going to really take strong pressure from Donald Trump. But Trump has the leverage. And I guess the question is just how committed is he to ending that suffering.

Wolfe: The journalist Dave Weigel posted on Monday that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries didn't even read your bill. I think we have a clip of that—if you could roll that, John.

(Hakeem Jeffries Clip)

Reporter: Would you support the Ro Khanna War Powers Resolution?

Jeffries: I haven't taken a look at it.

Wolfe: Do you find this a little insulting?

Khanna: I have a good relationship with Leader Jeffries. I think that was a clip taken in a particular context. What he was talking about is there's another War Powers Resolution that Adam Smith and Jim Himes and others are introducing. The language is very, very similar. We just had a meeting where many of us are getting behind both of them. So my guess is that what he was saying is that he wants to see which language he ultimately gets behind. But he's been very supportive of the War Powers Resolution getting a vote and issued a statement to that effect.

Wolfe: But do you feel like there's urgency among Democrats to embrace this? I mean, you're trying to rein in executive power in a massive way, and you're partnering with Thomas Massie, a Republican, to do so. Do you feel your own party supports this?

Khanna: I believe the Democrats should be bolder in being the anti-war party. We lost that mantle to Donald Trump in 2016, and we lost it to Donald Trump in 2024. We should be the party that says this country has been in too much endless wars—in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran—that we want to focus on bringing troops home to the extent that we can, that we want a less bloated defense budget, and that we want to invest in our communities. In jobs here, in child care here, in lower grocery prices here, and that we want to stop these bad trade deals that ship too much industry overseas and globalization. Trump took that message from us. Even though we have substantive policies, I think that really can make us the party of peace abroad and jobs at home. And that's the party that I'd like to build.

Weissmueller: It seems as if Congress has abdicated its responsibility to weigh in on matters of war and peace, and that there might be incentives for that because then you're not on the record voting for and against. How much of an appetite is there beyond you and Thomas Massie to actually reassert that power?

Khanna: We have 73 co-sponsors now on my resolution, even after the strikes have ended. And so obviously the urgency is a little less now than it was a few days ago, though there's a chance that Trump may take action again. So I believe that you can get over 100 members of Congress co-sponsoring this. That shows that there's a large group of people who believe Congress needs to reassert its role. And the reason they want Congress to reassert its role is not just procedural—it's that members of Congress are tied to their communities, and many people are hearing that Americans want money focused in their communities, not on these overseas wars.

Weissmueller: And can you talk a little bit more about your partnership with Massie in crafting this bill? Because he's now become kind of enemy number one—I say enemy number one, that would probably be Iran—but maybe enemy number two behind Iran for Trump, at least according to his social media feed— is Thomas Massie. He's constantly going after him. What has that partnership been like from your perspective?

Khanna: Well, as a principled person, we partnered together to stop Joe Biden from striking the Houthi ships without congressional authorization. We have spoken out against Yemen and the refueling of Saudi planes without any congressional authorization. We've spoken out again about Libya and the unconstitutional strikes there.

The reality is that Thomas Massie is a person of principle who cares about the Constitution, and he's a profile in courage. He's going to have a huge super PAC spent against him. And the reason Trump did that was because Massie not just got under his skin, Trump was afraid that other members of Congress were going to follow suit and that he was going to lose more of his base. So he had to really establish deterrence—that if you do this, you could be the next Thomas Massie. But I expect Massie will win. He's very popular in his district, and I think he was one of the people who helped make prevail, to make sure this wording can extend it.

Wolfe: I want to go back to something you were talking about just a minute ago. I've been thinking a lot about the sort of Tulsi Gabbard case study, I think you could call it, where somebody starts off as a Democrat and then they sort of shift into MAGA world. And I think with Gabbard, there were a lot of reasons for that. But when you think about one thing that's been so consistent over the course of her career is her commitment to the anti-war cause.

The vision of the Democratic Party that you just articulated a minute or two ago—I love. I think it's lovely. But it isn't something that I necessarily super recognize in today's Democratic Party. In fact, I feel like I can name more examples of the Tulsi Gabbard types—the people who are anti-war Democrats and then slowly sort of find strange bedfellows in the MAGA movement and ultimately sort of drift and feel as though the Democratic Party doesn't actually support the causes that they care about when it comes to foreign policy. Are you articulating a vision of the Democratic Party that currently exists or that you hope exists in the future?

Khanna: Well, it existed in the past with Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy even, I would argue—and a vision of peace abroad. I think it exists with Bernie Sanders, who really inspired many, and it exists in the Progressive Caucus. And I'm confident that that is going to prevail going forward.

Now, there's a difference, I think, between the Democratic vision of peace abroad and some of the Republican vision, which is I do think the Democrats believe still in very robust engagement overseas, in diplomacy, and respecting the human rights of other countries, and a Kennedy-esque vision that we provide moral leadership for seeing other countries that become democratic without militarily intervening. In hoping that they have economic development while prioritizing their—

I think the MAGA movement veers more toward just staying out completely of these international affairs. Whereas Democratic engagement does prioritize human rights and diplomacy. But on the intersection of staying out of war, there is a common ground.

Wolfe: It's funny that you invoked the Kennedy name. I obviously know what you mean. You're referring to a sort of different era, but I do wonder how much people now associate the Kennedy name entirely with RFK Jr.

Khanna: Well, look, RFK's made a mark, but he's no John F. Kennedy—come on. I think even he'd acknowledge that in his honest moments.

Weissmueller: I mean, to Liz's point, you do strike me as a different kind of Democrat—like out of step in some ways, in a good way, with your party. I was listening in preparation for this—you were on Theo Von's podcast earlier this week, which itself is an unusual thing for a Democratic politician to do. And I thought it was great—and very smart—that you are engaging with that audience, because he is kind of a direct line to the Trump circle.

You were making the case from a Democratic perspective for restraining the executive and the rule of law. But you seem to have a willingness to engage with the "other side" more than some other Democrats. It's not just teaming up with Massie. You also teamed up with Matt Gaetz to try to push forward some legislation to stop Congress members from trading stocks and be a little more transparent about where their money is coming from and so forth. What kind of hope do you have for that kind of left-right, anti-establishment alliance going forward?

Khanna: I think the American people want that. They're sick of the establishment in both parties. They are sick of this status quo. They think the status quo has failed them—in terms of having too many of these foreign wars, in terms of seeing communities hollowed out, trade deals that didn't work out, or places abandoned.

You can't have a nation half prosperous, half with trillions of dollars like my district, and half abandoned and half in decline. And they're frustrated with the money in politics that they see. They sense that special interests and lobbyists are rampant. And so they want reformers. They want people who are going to try to bring this country together—not with anodyne bipartisanship as a defense of the status quo—but bring it together around with a new agenda with reform.

That's why I'm proud of myself, I'm trying to build different kinds of alliances. With Todd Young, we passed the CHIPS Act together. I introduced with Representative Luna a bill to actually codify Donald Trump's executive order on big pharma and lowering prescription drug costs. I work with Massie many times on issues of war powers. With Don Bacon on issues on how we integrate advanced technology into our military. And I guess I just view it as: You're here to do things for the American people, and neither party nor any citizen has a monopoly on the truth.

Weissmueller: What are the big obstacles to that? Because even in the Gaetz team-up that I mentioned before, there was an interesting exchange you guys had on Twitter about that, where he was asking you how many Democrats you could deliver for this agenda—which is term limits, bans on individual stock trading, things like that. And he says he caps out somewhere around eight, and you say no more than 10. What's going on here?

Why is it something that a lot of Americans resonate with and would like to see—these kinds of anti-corruption measures, term limits—that are popular among Americans, but not popular in Congress? What are the big obstacles here?

Khanna: Well, they hurt people who are currently in power. People don't want to give up power. People are used to raising money from PACs, from lobbyists. They're used to becoming lobbyists after they're members of Congress. And it's just led to a distrust in the system.

You know, we were talking about John F. Kennedy. When John F. Kennedy was president, the approval in government was 60 percent. 60 percent trust in government. That number is in the teens now. And it's sad.

The government is critical to not just our national security but in partnering to do big things with the private sector, to have new dreams. So if you care—as a progressive Democrat, as I do—about being able to provide great child care and health care, you need to have a government that people trust.

One of the questions I saw that Joe Rogan asked Bernie Sanders—he said, "You're for taxing the rich, but I believe government is corrupt. You've said government is corrupted with the big money in politics. So why should we be giving taxes to an institution that is corrupt?"

You have to fundamentally answer this skepticism of government. It hurts people who believe government should have a role. But it's hard with the current entrenched generation. That's why I call for a new generation of leadership.

That's why I'm not afraid to speak out and bash Chuck Schumer for a week on television—because he was wrong. And I don't think that's personal. I don't have anything against him personally. But I think we have to speak out for our principles and close balls and strikes, regardless of party.

Wolfe: I hear what you're saying with regard to the idea that you need a certain amount of mass trust in government in order to have a healthy civil discourse and a government that can administer social services well and all the other things, right? Legitimacy is good. Rule of law is good. I agree with you on all of that. But I do have to take issue with the notion that having an American public that's—60 percent approval rating, 60 percent trust in the government—is a good thing.

I mean, shouldn't they have been a little bit more skeptical of their government, especially as they were undergoing regime change all over Latin America and MKUltra and all these representatives were low-key endorsing, like, Jonestown? I'm sorry, when I think back through American history, I think of a lot of cases of the government betraying or hoodwinking the American people. Which is not to say that you should go full down a conspiratorial Joe Rogan-y rabbit hole. But it is to say that maybe that was too much trust in government. What do you make of that?

Khanna: That's actually an excellent point. I think that there's probably a balance. We shouldn't be as trusting that we get all our news from Walter Cronkite and take the president's word as a semi-religious figure. That did get us into Vietnam. That did cause a lot of foreign policy that didn't respect human rights. That did lead to situations in our own country where civil liberties were being violated or people weren't being treated fairly.

But the opposite of that is an inherent cynicism, an inherent skepticism, where I think the average American today probably believes—as dysfunctional as things are—that members of Congress are more corrupt than they actually even are. There's just a sense that they're all bad, they're all messed up, they're all bought.

When you lose that kind of faith in government, that doesn't work either. Because you need the government to set a common purpose, to set a common direction. And absent an external threat, like a war, that's become very hard. We haven't been able to have solutions to immigration, towards challenges with technology, towards challenges with social media, towards challenges with jobs in places that have been abandoned. So it's about balance.

Wolfe: You see a little bit of this reflected within the American Dynamism Movement, which has sort of a foothold among the tech crowd and among many people on the right. But there's a little of the sense of, like, we should be doing great things again. We should be building again. Our cities should be paragons of excellence, things we can take pride in.

And yet we seem unmoored. We seem like we can't partake in these common projects together, whether they're private sector–driven or public investment–driven. So it's interesting what you're saying. Even though you're a Democrat, I would say there's a huge contingent on the tech right that totally agrees with you and is very concerned about this issue. Like, we can't do big things collectively anymore because we've lost the sense of shared purpose. I don't know whether it should be directed by government per se, but we've had excellent private-public partnerships in the past that led to huge projects that delivered technological advancement—and now we just don't do that.

Khanna: Yeah, this is why I call for a new economic patriotism—a 21st-century Marshall Plan. I think our common purpose should be to bring 21st-century economic renewal, economic jobs across this country in communities that have been left out. The economic divide in this country—where you have $5 trillion companies in my district and other places really hollowed out, where kids aren't going to live up to their parents' standard of living—I don't think that country can flourish with that kind of division.

I mean, it's not quite what Lincoln's division was—half slave and half free—but half prosperous and half in decline is not a winning formula for the country. And in doing that, we can also make sure that everyone's on the playing field of Team America, so that we're leading in the industries of the future, that we're leading in new technology.

But I think it is a Herculean task for anyone in politics to try to articulate a common mission that does that. I got criticized yesterday, even though I've probably been the most visible voice in the Democratic Party against the war in Iran and said that Trump's strikes are unconstitutional. I voted yesterday to table the impeachment, and people said, "Why aren't you impeaching him? Isn't that hypocritical?"

I said, "if we were going to impeach presidents just based on doing any unconstitutional thing, there wouldn't be many presidents who wouldn't have been impeached." But I did vote to impeach him twice before—it didn't work in terms of his conviction. And I do think that we have to be pragmatic and thoughtful about the deeper purpose in this country, which is, yes, accountability, but also: How, post–Donald Trump—which is going to happen—do we start to figure out a new generation that can bring the country together? How are we going to achieve that with a common purpose? And it's a very, very difficult task.

Wolfe: I think it's a good idea to have the option of no presidents. I mean, it's Reason Magazine—we kind of like that.

Weissmueller: But given the extreme distrust—especially of Congress—Congress of all the three branches, I think is the worst of all in terms of public trust or confidence. Is there just a top one or two reforms that you think could start to turn that around and make this body more functional?

Khanna: Money in politics and members of Congress becoming lobbyists.

The PACs, the super PACs, the contributions that dictate what gets voted on—is just terrible. We've got to get rid of PACs and super PACs. We've got to limit the influence of lobbyists in this country.

There are two to three pharma lobbyists for every member of Congress. I was joking—I think with Theo Von—I said it's like having double coverage in a sporting event, or sometimes triple coverage. It's just insane. And then a lot of members of Congress go become lobbyists, or staff members become lobbyists. That revolving door and the stench of money in politics needs to change.

That is probably the single biggest reform that we need.

Wolfe: Presidents have been going to war without permission for kind of a long time in this country. And Trump in particular—even if your resolution passed—it's possible that Trump might not feel very constrained by it after all. Should we, in fact, just give up on the idea that Congress has any say in 21st-century war making? And should we just focus on electing better presidents?

Khanna: We certainly should elect better presidents, but we shouldn't give up on Congress. Because when my War Powers Resolution with Sanders and Massie passed on Yemen, Donald Trump didn't sign it and it never became law, but he voluntarily stopped the refueling of Saudi planes.

I think in this case, I don't give Congress the mass of the credit. I actually give a lot of commentators and the movement more credit than Congress. But the fact that Congress was also amplifying the base collectively—it had an impact on Donald Trump. Public opinion had an impact on Donald Trump.

So do I think that Congress winning back formal power with the War Powers Resolution is an easy climb? No, I don't. It's a very steep climb in this country. It is going to mean electing a president who actually respects the constitutional authority. Probably Congress won't win it in a straight-up fight if the president is not committed to the Constitution in that way.

But I do think that Congress can be a amplifier of public opinion that does have an impact on the president. I've seen it have an effect in this case in Iran. I've seen it have an impact in Yemen. I've seen it have an impact in Obama on Syria.

And that's why we need more people in Congress willing to speak up.

Weissmueller: The last question, which is one we pose to all of our guests, Congressman: What is a question that you think more people, more Americans, should be asking?

Khanna: What am I going to do, and what are my kids going to do, in an AI future? How am I going to build economic security? How's my community going to build wealth? What does the 21st-century economy mean for me and my family?

Weissmueller: Congressman Ro Khanna Thank you for coming on the show.

Khanna: Thank you.

The post Ro Khanna: Congress Must Take Back Its War Powers appeared first on Reason.com.

Salah ad-Din 4: The Beginning of the End