How Democrats Will Wield Power on Foreign Policy

When Democrats take over the U.S. House and Senate in January, how will they use their new powers, and what foreign-policy issues will they prioritize? On the latest episode of FP Live, I spoke with Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and won reelection as a Democrat from Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. Crow helped lead the party’s efforts to select a diverse slate of candidates across the country, and he also helped direct their battleground and campaign strategy. He serves on the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees. The full interview is available on the video box atop this page, or on the FP Live podcast on Spotify, YouTube, or Apple. What follows here is a lightly edited transcript. Ravi Agrawal: I want to start with how you’re interpreting last week’s results. It was a rebuke for U.S. President Donald Trump, of course. It is less clear to me what the voters want as an alternative. So I wanted to ask you, what are the top three issues you see as takeaways that the American people want from a new Congress? Jason Crow: I actually think it is pretty clear what people want as an alternative. I sometimes get asked what our agenda should be come January. How about we do what we said we were going to do during the election? That’s the agenda—there’s no secret to this … RA: Sure, but the reason why I phrased my question as I did is that the Democratic Party represents a pretty wide tent. You were part of building that strategy of selecting candidates for specific states and, on an even more micro level than that, for specific districts. So it is a wide tent, and not everyone agrees with each other. JC: There is broad consensus on the core principles of this election. First, stop conflict with Iran, which is one of the biggest factors driving up costs in a reckless, lawless war that Americans don’t want. It’s one of the most bipartisan issues in America right now—Republicans and Democrats alike want the endless cycle of conflict in the Middle East to stop. Second, stop the tariff and trade wars that are devastating farmers and ranches and businesses across this country. Third, roll back the cuts to the Affordable Care Act subsidies, which have devastated our healthcare system, doubled and tripled many Americans’ healthcare premiums, and in 2027 are going to result in hundreds of hospital and clinic closures. And fourth, go after corruption. This was the first anti-corruption election in my lifetime. Corruption became a kitchen-table issue. Americans saw that corruption has a direct impact on their lives and pocketbooks. They’ve sent a very clear mandate that they want us to go after corruption and to clean up their government. RA: Right. Let’s talk more about that first factor. Trump launched that war with Iran without congressional approval. He conducted the Venezuela operation in January without informing Congress. There is gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean, again, with Congress not able to do much to move the needle. Why couldn’t Congress do more, and what will actually change on that front come January? JC: Congress can do more. Congress has the power. The problem is that Congress hasn’t used that power for many decades. I think it’s really important to note that this is not just a Donald Trump problem. For 25 years now, Congress has given blank checks in the form of faulty authorizations for the use of military force that aren’t clearly delineated and don’t have sunset provisions, which have allowed multiple presidents—Democratic and Republican alike—over multiple Congresses, also controlled by Democrats and Republicans alike, to continue a perpetual cycle of conflict. The framers of the U.S. Constitution put an accountability loop in place: The people that decide when and how to go to war are the people’s representatives in Congress. We’re supposed to debate it, vote on it, let our constituents know where we stand, and then we’re supposed to fund it. That loop is broken. We’ve been debt funding it for over two decades, but we haven’t been debating and voting on it for over two decades, in many cases. That has to end. We have the power, and that’s what we need to do in January. We have to look at the authorizations for use of military force, which we’re going to do. We’re also going to look at reforming the War Powers Act. It’s my personal belief that we should cut off funding for the Iran war and end it as quickly as we can. RA: Critics have pointed out that it is very hard to use the power of the purse, especially when a country is already at war. Congress historically has done very little to withhold funding for wars, mostly because it will get criticized immediately. People will say you’re putting troops there in harm’s way and that you’re actively signaling to an adversary that Congress isn’t willing to do what it takes to win. How are you going to navigate that specific issue? JC: They always say that. For 25 years, they’ve said, “We can’t pull out now. We just have to keep on throwing money at it.” Every year, we are told that we have to double down and keep going. Well, 25 years, $3 trillion, and 7,000 American lives later, after hundreds of thousands have been wounded and our credibility is in tatters, these wars ended poorly. So when somebody tells me we can’t possibly cut funding off, I say, “Actually, we can. Watch me.” That’s different from saying that we’re going to charge the military to make sure that we wrap this up responsibly, that we’re going to do what’s called “retrograde operations,” so we protect our troops and our interests. We have the ability to do that. We have done that in the past. I simply will not buy this argument that once we’re at war, we have to stick it out. It’s just not going to work. And Americans don’t want it. Americans know that that argument is a farce. What’s crazy is Donald Trump campaigned on this. He said he was going to end this endless cycle of conflict, and then he turned his back and doubled down on it. We have to wrap it up quickly and cut off funding. RA: In my view, Trump basically has three options in the Iran war. One would be to escalate, even though many analysts would point out that is a terrible idea. JC: It is a terrible idea. That’s another one of those things that has been said for 25 years. “We’re going to escalate to fix it and then to solve it.” How many times did we try that in Iraq and Afghanistan—15? RA: Right, you served in those conflicts and know this so well. But the second option would be to do something small quickly, declare victory, and try to get out. The third would be to actively pursue diplomacy. Of that second and third option, which one would you push for? JC: I’d push for a combination of both. We have to make sure we’re protecting ourselves and that we’re drawing down effectively. Diplomacy is really the only way out. We can’t bomb our way to a resolution. That will never work. The Iranian regime is built to withstand that. Our largest adversaries—Russia and China—are so happy that we are tied up in spending our stockpiles, money, and attention in Iran and not paying attention to what’s going on in the Pacific or the Russia-Ukraine conflict. They’re delighted that this is happening. So I want to pivot away from this as quickly as possible. We have the capability to do that while also protecting ourselves against a malignant Iranian regime. We have the intelligence capability. We still have the military capability to respond if we need to. The only way out of this is to put together an international coalition of partners that will make sure we’re protecting the region, respecting navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz, and preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. That’s what we did before and can continue to do. RA: The Republican Party managed to block an attempt to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth this week. What happens next here? Are you confident that a new House of Representatives will try to impeach Hegseth? And are you sure you think that is worth it? JC: It’s my opinion that we should, and I’ve been very clear to my colleagues and to leadership about that. I have a great disdain for Hegseth, but it’s not about that for me. There are a lot of people in this business that I don’t like, but I can get over that. For me, it’s about the fact that our 1 million-plus men and women in uniform right now, who are around the world conducting combat operations and are at risk, have a failed leader at the helm of the Department of Defense. Hegseth is not just incompetent. He is corrupt and trying to change the face and the culture of the military to match his own vision, which would be a stark departure from the historic legacy of what our military should be, which is a reflection of our country and a standard-bearer of our values. As long as he is at the perch at the Pentagon, I will do everything possible to get him removed, because our service members deserve nothing less. RA: As we said at the start, the Democrats represent a very wide tent right now. I’m curious how you’re imagining this group will go about formulating a new foreign policy. Crucially, I want to know what areas you imagine will emerge as key differences from not only the Trump era of the last two years, but also from the years under former President Joe Biden. JC: I think I have pretty good insight into that because, as the battleground chair for House Democrats, I visited all 12 battleground states, where I participated in countless events with farmers, doctors, nurses, and factory workers, in all sorts of communities—urban, rural, red, blue, purple. What I can tell you is that Americans don’t want to go back. They don’t like the devastation and the chaos of this administration, but they also don’t want us to go back to where we were before. What they want us to do is move forward and to build a system that’s structured differently and that has different people at the helm that will deliver for working-class Americans. I highlight working-class Americans because they feel as though they have been uniquely impacted by faulty trade deals, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deindustrialization, and technology and automation, which I agree with. They want a foreign policy that’s designed to make their lives better, that delivers for them. Every decision should be focused to that end. This shouldn’t be that hard. RA: Can I ask you to put a little bit more meat on the bone there with some specifics? Directionally, a lot of what you’re saying sounds to me like “foreign policy for the middle class,” which was the Biden administration’s slogan. JC: I was getting to that. Working-class Americans want foreign policy focused on them, which is a very important organizing principle. This differentiates them from the middle class. This is actually really a key point: Working class is extremely different from middle class. When you refer to working-class people, you’re talking about a particular way of work, type of work, and way that a person lives their life. In America, there is a unique culture and dignity to the working class. When you say “middle class,” that means something very different in the mind of a working-class American. That was one of the defects of Biden’s policy. Almost every American thinks of themselves as middle class. But people know when they’re working class. There’s pride there. I’m finalizing organizing principles for what I believe the future of foreign policy should look like and what we need to be focusing on. My top principle is changing the pipeline of talent. Americans don’t trust our institutions anymore. That’s very clear. And that’s hard for some people to hear. This is why Trump won his election and why we ended up with the Department of Government Efficiency—Americans pushed back. They want significant changes to our institutions, and they don’t see themselves reflected in them. Our foreign-policy and national security apparatus is mostly run by people who went to the same two universities and grew up within 100 miles of an ocean. That has to change. There are 200 million Americans that live in flyover country, in the heartland. There’s tremendous talent, tremendous diversity in this nation. And we have to completely alter our talent pipeline, tap into that, and help build the next generation of leadership and civil servants and diplomats who will lead us forward. RA: I am right in thinking here that you’re talking not just about representatives in Congress, but also about the policy incubators—the think tanks, the media, the wider ecosystem that builds the class of people who advise people like you in Congress? JC: Exactly. That ecosystem has become very insular. It does not turn over, and it hasn’t tapped into our country. There’s very little feedback between that ecosystem and the rest of the country right now. I don’t think anyone can dispute that. Americans certainly know it’s true. There is a huge gap between what happens here in D.C. and what everyday Americans are thinking about. That is why trust is so broken. It’s all about people. The first step has to be getting the right people on the bus to make sure that we are restoring that trust and closing that gap.