Ro Khanna calls on Democrats to reclaim identity as ‘the anti-war party’

In the days since Donald Trump authorized strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and then forged a shaky ceasefire agreement, Congressman Ro Khanna has called on Democrats to reclaim a political identity he says they lost: being the party of peace.

“Now is the time for the Democratic party to be the anti-war party – the party against wars of choice,” Khanna said in an interview. “We should be the party of peace abroad, good jobs at home. Donald Trump took that from us in 2016 and 2024 and my leadership this past week has been trying to reclaim the anti-war mantle.”

On Capitol Hill, Khanna is at the center of a renewed push to reassert congressional authority over war-making. But away from the House floor, the California progressive, viewed as a potential 2028 contender, is challenging Democrats to act like an opposition party that is determined to prevent another “forever war”.

It is, in his view, both a morally correct position and politically wise one.

“The reality is that the Washington beltway is out of touch with where most Americans are,” he said. “Most Americans are very opposed to these wars. They’re opposed to this increase of defense contractor spending. They want to focus on building jobs here, building prosperity here.”

Recent polling by CNN and Reuters/Ipsos found that a majority disapproved of the president’s decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran.

Khanna argues that the Democratic party’s foreign policy – especially the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel’s war in Gaza – has damaged its standing with young voters. He sees a chance to rebuild trust with those disillusioned by a president who once pledged to be judged by “perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into”, but has instead backed military strikes and later mused about the possibility of “regime change” in Iran.

“This is something that can help us build a majority coalition – help us win back disaffected young men who don’t want to see more wars,” he said. “They want to see investments in their communities and it should really be something the Democratic Party should get out in front of.”

It’s not a new argument for Khanna, who launched one of the first anti-Iraq war primary challenges against a sitting House Democrat in 2004. During Trump’s first term, he partnered with Senator Bernie Sanders and a coalition of anti-interventionist Republicans to pass a war powers resolution – the first ever to reach a president’s desk – which Trump ultimately vetoed. The measure aimed to end US military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

“What the American people want is for politicians and leaders to stand up and say, ‘I’m going to take on the defense establishment. I’m going to take on the foreign policy bloc. I’m going to stand up against these wars,’” Khanna said. “They want us to speak with clarity, not process arguments.”

This time, Khanna has joined forces with Republican congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, to sponsor a war powers resolution that would require congressional approval before the US military engages in further hostilities against Iran.

According to Khanna, the resolution that, as of Wednesday, had nearly 70 Democratic co-sponsors, is on track to come up for a vote in mid July. But its fate is uncertain. Massie, who has faced withering criticism from Trump over his support for the resolution, has suggested the measure might not be necessary if the peace agreement endures.

Khanna hopes Trump’s ceasefire holds – but he does not believe that matters of war and peace should be left to the whims of a mercurial president.

“We need to have this resolution in case, over the next few weeks, [Trump] decides to threaten Iran again or gets pushed into Iran again,” he said. “And more importantly, it should be given a vote so that we know that Congress is going to be willing to step up in the future when he’s tempted to go into war.”

Nearly all of Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill have rallied around the president, arguing that he had the right to order the strikes as commander-in-chief. On Tuesday, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said that he believed the War Powers Resolution, the law Congress passed in 1973, overriding a presidential veto from Richard Nixon, to require congressional authorization for the use of military force, was itself “unconstitutional”.

The White House has hailed the strikes as a strategic success – a show of strength that blunted Iran’s nuclear ambitions at minimal cost. US officials characterized Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on a US base in Qatar as largely symbolic.

But an initial US intelligence assessment has suggested that Iran’s nuclear program was not “obliterated” as Trump claimed, but set back only by a few months. It also found that much of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon was moved before the strikes. The White House has rejected the report as “flat-out wrong”.

Citing both the intelligence findings and signs of hardline resistance inside Iran, Khanna warns the risk of escalation remains high. Trump has threatened further bombing if Iran restarts its nuclear program, and what Khanna calls the “neocon wing” is already agitating for more aggressive action – including talk of regime change in Tehran.

The Senate may vote as soon as this week on a similar resolution led by Tim Kaine, a Democrat of Virginia. Kaine has said he expects the measure to receive the support of all but one Democrat and at least some Republicans, but it remains unclear if it will garner enough votes to pass.

“Too many members of Congress, especially the tough-talking Iran hawks on the Republican side, they’re OK with war, but by God, they’re too chicken to vote for it,” Kaine said, speaking shortly before Khanna on a Tuesday night live stream hosted by the progressive activist group MoveOn.

A growing number of Democrats are now publicly calling Trump’s decision to strike Iran not only dangerous, but unconstitutional – an act of war carried out without congressional authorization. For Khanna, it’s a sign his party may finally be rediscovering its anti-war roots.

“In the beginning, there was a muddled message and silence,” he said of the Democrats’ response. “But I think as the week has progressed, more and more people are coming around to my view.”