House Dems defy Trump on Yemen and Saudi Arabia

Congress inched closer to a major foreign-policy rebuke of President Donald Trump on Wednesday when the House Foreign Affairs Committee advanced a bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen's bloody civil war.

In a party-line vote, the panel's Democrats sent a War Powers resolution to the House floor, where it is likely to pass overwhelmingly in the coming days. A companion effort in the Senate will follow, but its prospects are less certain as Trump administration officials are ramping up efforts to discourage Republican defections.

The backdrop of the highly anticipated vote remains the Trump administration's close relationship with Saudi Arabia — in particular, bipartisan frustration with its continued backing of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen's civil war, which is fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels in what has devolved into a humanitarian crisis. "More than 14 million Yemenis — half the country — are on the brink of famine, and at least 85,000 children have already died from hunger and disease as a result of the war," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, after the vote. "Let's end American complicity in the atrocities in Yemen."

With the bill expected to easily pass in the Democratic-controlled House later this month, all eyes will soon be on Republican senators, who could soon force Trump to issue the first veto of his presidency. If both chambers approve the legislation, it would be the first time in history that both chambers passed a War Powers resolution.

In December, a handful of GOP senators defected from their party and the president to support the measure to cut off U.S. support for the coalition, amid concerns about the Trump administration's response to the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Senate approved the measure but it went nowhere in the House, which at the time was controlled by Republicans who used procedural powers to block a vote on the measure.

There are now 53 Republicans in the upper chamber — as opposed to 51 during the December vote — which means that the path to victory is much narrower. But the chief proponents of the resolution are projecting confidence.

"The Saudis have done nothing to win over more votes since December," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a main sponsor of the Senate bill, said in an interview.

"Somebody like Lindsey Graham is no less satisfied with the Saudis than he was in December," he added.

The hawkish Graham (R-S.C.), who did not vote for the resolution in December, indicated he would be open to backing it this time around because of the White House's response to Saudi Arabia's brutal murder of Khashoggi. Despite his close relationship with Trump, Graham criticized the president's strong defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom the CIA reportedly believes ordered the grisly killing of Khashoggi.

"I'm very supportive of doing anything we can to let Saudi Arabia know we don't like what they're doing," Graham told POLITICO.

Many of the Republicans who voted for the resolution in December indicated they aren't prepared to back off of the resolution; and Republicans are getting antsy the longer the administration goes without leveling a substantive punishment against Riyadh.

Senators have voiced support for sanctions and for ending U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, but Trump has stood by the kingdom and argued in part that the arms sales were important for the U.S. economy. CNN reported on Tuesday that Saudi Arabia had transferred some of those weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters in Yemen, including the Houthis themselves, a revelation Murphy believes could push even more Republicans to break with Trump.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who supported the measure, said "if it's similar to what I voted before, I plan to stay consistent." Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who tried putting together a Saudi Arabia sanctions package at the end of the last Congress, said he would first "see if the administration has changed their disposition at all" before committing one way or the other.

But top officials from the White House, Pentagon and State Department appear to be employing the same strategy to discourage Republicans from signing onto the resolution.

On Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Tim Lenderking held a classified briefing for Republican and Democratic staffers of the Foreign Affairs Committee, an aide told POLITICO. Some lawmakers attended the briefing, including the committee's top Republican, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, said the Trump administration was continuing to make the case that a War Powers resolution would be an unprecedented and dangerous path.

McCaul — who joined all Republicans on the Foreign Affairs panel in voting against the resolution — said that while the U.S. has "a classified number of counterterrorism special operators [in Yemen] that are focused on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and threats to the homeland," there are no active American combat troops on the ground in the country.

"The War Powers resolution applies to actively engaged hostilities. That would be combat in Yemen. Currently we don't have any active military engaged in combat hostilities against the Houthis," McCaul said after attending the briefing. "If we had active combat engaged in hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen, I would be all for this."

McCaul also confirmed that the Trump administration is actively working to try to reassure Republicans about the purposes of U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, apparently to try to stave off even more GOP defections this time.

For the most part, Democrats have stopped attending the classified briefings altogether, accusing the Trump administration of using the sessions as a vehicle to influence legislative outcomes rather than to provide facts and updates on U.S. military operations.

"It's one of the reasons I don't go to a lot of those kinds of [briefings] — they're classified, but they're all too often just propaganda briefings," Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said. "You often go to those things at your own peril. And that's why I don't go."