← The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Podcast
Lawfare Daily: Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) on Congress’s Role in Foreign Affairs
00:39:38
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:01]
Contentful/Siemens Marketer
Want to turn challenges into chances. Go digital enterprise and adapt to every change by combining the real and digital worlds. Transform the everyday with Siemens marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive, When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com.
- [00:49]
Renee Diresta
Hi, I'm Renee Diresta, a contributing editor at lawfare. You may have heard me on our podcasts talking about online influence operations or platform governance. Or read my writing on the messy intersection of tech, democracy and free expression. What makes lawfair different and what makes me so proud to be here is that the whole team produces bold, fearless commentary that synthesizes across disciplines law, technology, national security policy. As emerging technologies move faster than the policies meant to govern them, that kind of analysis is essential. Lawfare is a 501c3 nonprofit. Everything that we produce is free with no paywall. But that only works because listeners like you step up, head to lawfairmedia.org support and become a material supporter. Just $10 a month or more if you're able, makes a real difference in helping us tell the stories that hold power to account. Plus, supporting our work gets you access to member only perks like the AD free podcast feed, monthly, ask us anything, opportunities, invites to special events, and more. It's a win win. Thanks for listening and for supporting LawFair.
- [02:01]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
And I think that's really what we have right now is oversight is asking the questions, demanding investigations, trying to make sure that even if sort of the political atmosphere at the Pentagon has changed, that the COCOM commanders are still retaining that capacity and expertise and including the civilian harm mitigation measures in their targeting.
- [02:25]
Scott R. Anderson
It's the lawfare Podcast. I'm Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson with Representative Sarah Jacobs of the 51st congressional district of California.
- [02:34]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
We are going to have to do a lot of oversight and in the foreign policy space, specifically on Venezuela, on Iran, on the use of our military in domestic instances.
- [02:47]
Scott R. Anderson
Today we're talking about the role Congress plays in foreign affairs and national security and where it may go from here. So, Representative Jacobs, I want to start with an observation. You are a bit of an outlier for the simple reason that I think the conventional wisdom in American politics is that foreign affairs, national security are a bit of a back burner issue. They're not what motivates voters. They're not the top of a lot of people's political calculuses, but when you go to your website, when you look at your press releases, I did a little exercise and looked back and they're almost all about foreign affairs and national security, at least over the last several months. Have to go pretty far back in 2025 to find two in a row that aren't. Talk to us about where you see foreign affairs and national security fitting into your role as a member of Congress, why you seem to be giving it such a priority and how it fits both with your duties as a representative and your mandate from your constituents.
- [03:41]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, well look, when I ran for Congress, I'd worked at the State Department in the UN and everyone told me like, don't talk about foreign policy, don't talk about foreign policy. But the fact of the matter is actually people are interested in knowing what your ideas are and what your plans are. And you know, foreign policy is a back burner issue until it isn't. Right. We know that the war in Iran for instance, is very front and center in voters minds right now because prices are up and it's really impacting their day to day lives. And I am very fortunate to represent an amazing community in San Diego that is, you know, a border community, a port community, the largest military community in the country and has a huge refugee and asylum seeker population and a lot of immigrants. And so you know, for my district, for my community, foreign policy is very present. And these aren't sort of far off theoretical ideas. You know, we talk about the war in Iran. I think for a lot of people it's showing up in their daily lives in prices, which it is for my constituents for sure. But it's also showing up in the fact that we've got 2,500 San Diego Marines off the coast of Iran right now. We've got a number of our service members in San Diego who are on 48 hour deployment notice. Like this is actually the real lives that are, you know, being impacted by this conflict. This is the real life of my constituents. And it is, you know, pretty shameful to me actually that so many of my colleagues are really willing to put them in harm's way to let them potentially sacrifice their lives without any real plan or strategy. And so that's why I spend so much time working on and talking about foreign policy because it really is an incredibly important part of our country and our national security and also my constituents lives. And it affects everything. It affects our security, it affects our economy. Right. These are, it's all related.
- [05:37]
Scott R. Anderson
So let's start with the Iran war because obviously that is a topic that's hard to miss these days, hard to avoid and affecting so many things here in America and around the world. World, you have been a leader in the House of the effort to oppose your own words, specifically through the use of resolutions that are given expedited procedures through the War Powers resolutions. There have been two concurrent resolutions in the House, I believe six joint resolutions in the Senate. Those have so far lost across the board. None have been adopted. Fairly slim margins and I should say narrowing margins, mostly partisan, a little bit of bipartisan. Try it over. Talk to us about where you think the strategy is likely to go now that we've passed both the important for the war powers resolution 60 day mark, two Fridays ago. Now we're past that period where at least under the War Powers Resolution it says the president should have terminated hostilities. All the executive branches arguments why that isn't here. And also we're in a point where we may be seeing as we're recording this, the ceasefire breaking down, it seems like we may be reaching the end of this period of relative stability and relative low violence that we've had over the last few weeks. Where do you think this effort to oppose the war in Iran is likely to go from here in the House and the broader Congress?
- [06:48]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, look, I oppose the war in Iran because I think that it is a strategic mistake and it is literally putting my constituents lives at risk. And we have already lost 13 service members. And there's only bad options at this point, which is why every president before Trump has declined to actually use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Because actually the most sustainable way to do that is through a diplomatic negotiation. Negotiation which now the Trump administration is trying to do, but with a worse hand than we had before. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which I'm a member, will be introducing war powers resolutions every single week so that we always have one that's ripe so that we can force a vote and put Republicans on the record on, you know, whether they stand with the Constitution, stand with our troops or whether they're willing to rubber stamp whatever Donald Trump wants, even if it makes sense, no sense, and actually doesn't make our country any safer. And that's what we'll continue doing. But the War Powers Resolution is only one option that we have in terms of how we can oppose this war. We know that there will at some point be a supplemental funding request coming to us. The number has ranged from, you know, $20 billion to $200 billion. We're still waiting to see what number they actually send to us. But I think it's incredibly important that all of my colleagues reject that supplemental funding request, because we know that the courts have seen that if Congress funds something, even if we haven't authorized it, that is seen as a de facto authorization. And so I think looking both at our annual appropriations bills, which we are working on right now, and whatever supplemental funding request comes down, making sure that we are actually using Congress's power, the power of the purse, to prevent Donald Trump from doing anything more in this reckless, illegal war will be incredibly important, both for the practicalities of it and for the legal underpinnings of it.
- [08:46]
Scott R. Anderson
So we are getting to that critical point, as you know, where we're going to have potentially this supplemental appropriations request, defense authorization, defense appropriations bills, later this year, an opportunity where the tables turn a little bit on the leverage with Congress and the President. The President can't veto those easily, so it's a narrow margin to get something enacted into law. What do you think the focus should be in terms of what Congress should be seeking in those laws? We can assume, I think opponents of the war aren't going to get everything they would want. What do you think is most important? How would you triage the different legislative ask Congress could insert into that legislation?
- [09:20]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, I think the most important thing that we need to do is fence off funding and say that no funding can be used for this illegal, reckless war in Iran. And that's one of the best tools Congress has had. It's actually the way Congress was able to work to force, for instance, you know, the Vietnam War to end other conflicts. Making sure that, you know, we are saying that funding can't be used for this purpose. That is specifically prohibited is the best tool Congress has. We have a number of bills that would do that in terms of Venezuela, in terms of Iran. And I think it's important that we try and get that into whatever broad package ends up going through in terms of appropriations and the National Defense Authorization Act.
- [10:04]
Scott R. Anderson
Another issue that has come up in the context of Iran, but also Venezuela, and particularly the maritime strikes happening throughout the Caribbean and the Pacific over the last seven or eight months or so is this question of civilian casualties, the blending between categories of combatant and civilians, and then disproportionate impact on civilians as a result of military operations. It's a big issue that got a lot of attention from Congress and the last administration, and then a lot of those efforts have been criticized by the current administration. The current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, talk to us about the status of those issues. Where do you think this issue is? Your co chair of the Protection of Civilians and Conflicts Caucus. You've been following this. What are the big deficits that we're seeing under current action, and what should Congress do to try and address those?
- [10:47]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, so a couple of years ago, in a bipartisan way, we were able to get a number of provisions around civilian casualties into the National Defense Authorization act that, for instance, mandated a Center of Excellence on Civilian Harm Mitigation that institutionalized the Civilian Harm Mitigation Action Plan that Secretary Austin had put in place, that mandated certain civilian harm positions and activities be done at the different cocoms. And this administration has largely gutted all of those efforts and, you know, are trying to do sort of checking the box so that they're not technically breaking the law, but not actually following the law in terms of, of what we had intended. And again, this was passed in a bipartisan way in the National Defense Authorization Act. A lot of what we're doing is trying to do oversight to make sure that, for instance, even if that the titles have changed of people's jobs, that there are still people who are doing the specific civilian harm mitigation tasks and jobs that we know are incredibly important, for instance, in targeting, and that these investigations are happening when an incident happens. So, for instance, I led over half of the Democratic caucus on an oversight letter asking about the US Strike on the girls school in Manoba, and we are still waiting answers on that. DOD says the investigations are ongoing, but we know that that is maybe the most public and biggest of the civilian harm allegations in Iran, but not by any means the only one. And so we're continuing to do that oversight. And I think that's really what we have right now is oversight is asking the questions, demanding investigations, trying to make sure that even if sort of the political atmosphere at the Pentagon has changed, that the COCOM commanders are still retaining that capacity and expertise and including the civilian harm mitigation measures in their targeting, and that we are then working so that when we are back in power, those, those folks are, you know, still there in the institution and we can quickly rebuild. I think a lot of times when I talk about civilian harm mitigation, people think I'm just like, I don't know, a lefty who doesn't want people to die. And it's true. I don't want people to die unnecessarily. But it's Also incredibly important because we know that civilian harm and when we or our partners or allies are hurting and killing civilians in conflict actually really impacts our national security. We know that that is one of the main drivers to violent extremism. For instance, if you look at sort of all the empirical studies on what leads communities or people into violent extremism, acts of violence by the state against themselves or someone they know is one of those main drivers. And so I actually think it's incredibly important because in a lot of these cases we say we're trying to fight violent extremism, but then we are doing one of the very things that is one of the biggest drivers and is just building more anti American sentiment instead of solving the problem we are saying we're there to solve. So I think it's incredibly important. And actually I was able to ask Admiral Paparo, the Indo PAYCOM commander, about this and he said the same thing, that civilian harm mitigation is an incredibly important part of American national security. And that's why he continues to prioritize it even as this administration is sort of gutting the statutorily required civilian harm mitigation efforts within the Pentagon.
- [14:20]
Scott R. Anderson
So we've talked a lot about the defense space and you are of course on the Armed Services Committee, but you're also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which oversees the other big parts of our foreign policy apparatus, State Department development. So let's talk about that a little bit. You have been very active in the foreign assistance space over your last term in Congress. During the course of this Congress, you, if I recall correctly, I think sponsored or certainly supported legislation to try and stop the shutting down of usaid. I don't believe that move forward. Obviously, USAID has been shut down at this point in all but name, effectively. You've also introduced more recently some legislation aimed at reforming foreign assistance, shifting towards a more locally based model that actually has some synergies with at least some rhetoric, some targets, some objectives. The Trump administration people support of what the Trump administration has done aligns with that a little bit. There's a little bit of synergy there. And notably that's a bipartisan piece of legislation. You're co sponsoring it, I believe, with one of your fellow representatives, Republican Young Kim from California. Talk to us about where you think foreign assistance should be going in this moment, where it has seen such a sea change in the institutions and the mechanisms usually approached it through. Where do you think it should go? Do you think there's bipartisan support for that? And what is Congress's role in shaping that and driving that forward.
- [15:37]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah. I mean, if you had told me in December of 2024 that introducing a bill saying that no funds can be used to change USAID like that were done in a non statutory way would be controversial, I would have thought you were crazy. That would have been like a broad bipartisan bill. But of course, by February 2025, that was not the case. And we've seen this illegal gutting of usaid and I think it's clearly illegal and really problematic in terms of Congress's role and how we make sure that, you know, laws that Congress passes, statute that Congress creates, actually get enforced. And I think, you know, while I don't know exactly what that looks like, I think that brings up a whole other conversation about what kind of structural reforms we need to make sure that Congress can actually enforce and implement the laws that we are passing. But I think you can both acknowledge that what the Trump administration did on USAID was wrong and illegal and has killed many people, and also acknowledge that this is now an opportunity for reform and to improve how aid is delivered. Because while I wouldn't have done it the way Donald Trump did it, I think we, we were working on USAID reform and foreign assistance reform well before this and we shouldn't just rebuild what we had before it. Actually there were a lot of reforms that were needed. And so one of the big reforms I think we need is how we bring other countries into this conversation and really make it more of a partnership. And you know, I'm the ranking member on the subcommittee on Africa. And, and so I talk to a lot of our partners in the Global south all the time. And what I heard from them after, you know, USAID funding was pulled is that, you know, these, these countries were not like, oh no, we need the funding back. They're like, oh, we should use this as an opportunity to be more self sufficient because countries don't want to be dependent on aid and we shouldn't want them to be dependent on aid. And so that's why we're focused on locally led development, making sure that we are investing in local actors, local partners, building capacity on the ground, instead of just sort of the way we've traditionally done foreign assistance that is, you know, very US Centric. I think we need to be focused more on government, to government support, which will also include a lot more monitoring and, you know, protections because we know that that kind of support can be ripe for corruption and we'll need that sort of protection. But having clear benchmarks and Timelines on, you know, what an off ramp looks like, having clear buy in from other countries in terms of what they're putting forward, really thinking strategically about what it is that it makes sense for the US to do versus what it makes sense for our partner countries to do in full transparency. I think Congress is partially to blame here. Right. Because through the appropriations process over the years we've had so many earmarks on what foreign assistance can go to that it has left the folks on the ground very little room to operate. So I think in Mozambique prior to the Trump administration, something like 95% of all foreign assistance to Mozambique was already earmarked by Congress as to what it had to do. And a lot of what Congress earmarks is this very sort of disease specific work. Right. Because you have advocacy groups that focus on this that then ask for these specific appropriations requests that end up in the appropriations bill. And it all makes sense why we got to this place because people care a lot about a specific issue and want to make sure it gets funded. And the way to do that is to have protected funding for it. But if you actually take a step back, what actually makes more sense would be for the US to really focus on health system strengthening and let the countries then do the more specific disease specific work within that health system strengthening that we're doing. And we've been able to do that. I think PEPFAR was a really great example of how you can work on disease specific work and also be doing that health system strengthening, but really thinking more holistically about what does it make sense for the US to do, how do we make sure we're building these off ramps and clearly working with our partner countries in partnership and not just as this kind of like thing we give you that you are then dependent on. I think it's incredibly important as we move forward and I do think there is bipartisan appetite to really rethink what our foreign assistance can be and how we do it.
- [19:59]
Bill.com Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Bill, the intelligent finance platform that helps businesses and accounting firms scale with proven results. When you're growing a business, the stakes get higher. You can't afford infrastructure that breaks under pressure. If you care about security, reliability and scale, I want to let you in on a secret. Bill is the foundational software that nearly half a million businesses and 90 of the top 100, 100 US accounting firms used to automate back office workflows, add secure controls to payment processes and scale without increased overhead. With AI powered accounts payable automation, Bill erases the Busy work from capturing invoices, routing approvals, and processing payments, syncing seamlessly with the top accounting software platforms. So your books are always accurate. But Bill isn't just accounts payable. It supports the full payments workflow. Bill has processed over $1 trillion in transactions, leveraging that expertise to help you manage, move, and maximize your finances. So stop the guesswork and start scaling with the proven Choice. Go to Bill.comProven to talk with a payments expert and get a $250 gift card as a thank you. That's Bill.comProven. terms and conditions apply. See offer page for details. Hey, folks, have you heard what is happening on May 15th at the Federal Reserve? Well, in case you haven't, and if you're a lawfare listener, you probably have heard, May 15th marks the potential leadership shift at the Federal Reserve. And markets don't just react to policy decisions. They react to expectations. They react to uncertainty. They react to what they think might be the expectations of uncertainty. And when leadership changes, the tone, priorities, and directions of monetary policy can change, too. So every Fed chair has a different tolerance for inflation. And when there's political pressure from the White House to lower rates, you know, that may increase tolerance. They have different approaches to interest rates. They have different philosophies. And of course, they have different susceptibilities to political pressure and to political pressure by criminal investigations. That means we could be entering a period of significant volatility. Which brings me to the subject of gold. Gold performs well during periods of monetary uncertainty, not because the sky is falling or not necessarily because the sky is falling, but because investors reassess risk. And they say, hmm, maybe this guy's gonna lower interest rates unpredictably for reasons that I can't quite figure out or articulate, and they go back to something solid. So if you've been wondering whether gold should be part of your portfolio, this is the kind of moment where it makes sense to speak with someone who understands the market. And Noble Gold Investments has been helping investors protect their savings with physical gold and silver for nearly a decade. I talked to the founder of Noble Gold, Colin, recently, and I was super impressed. You know, he's really committed to this stuff, to getting people the information they need to make investment decisions. And here's what sets them apart. They have this white glove service from start to finish. They'll walk you through how physical gold and silver work. Whether you're considering a direct purchase or rolling over part of an ira, Everything's transparent. They're not pushy. They're not going to pressure you. They explain exactly what you're buying and why. They genuinely put customers first. And they've built their reputation by giving people the answers they need to stop guessing and decide with confidence. So don't wait until six months from now when you'll be wishing you had repositioned earlier. Have the conversation now. Schedule a free Gold strategy session@noblegoldinvestments.com lawfare that's noblegoldinvestments.com lawfair get the information you need to make smart decisions about protecting your Future. Discover the 1% wealth strategy at noblegoldinvestments.com LawFair
- [25:20]
Contentful/Siemens Marketer
Marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive, when a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com need real insight from industrial data versit with a single source of everything and get the best outcomes.
- [25:58]
Renee Diresta
Transform the everyday with Siemens.
- [26:04]
Contentful/Siemens Marketer
Listen to this Acast show ad free on Amazon Music with your prime membership or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts
- [26:15]
Scott R. Anderson
and another area that you've targeted for reform recently is the State Department and critically, the conduct of diplomacy. In the past, you've been active about efforts to try and get the State Department to look a little more towards predicting trends in conflict. You supported establishing a Center for Conflict Analysis in the State Department. Now, more recently, you've got another piece of bipartisan legislation co sponsor with Michael Baumgartner, I believe, Republican from Washington State talking about expeditionary diplomacy. A topic that's very close to my heart as I was briefly an expeditionary diplomat of sorts back early in my career. But a topic that is a little in the weeds for a lot of people. Talk to us about why this stands out to you as an issue worth addressing on the part of Congress and what Congress's role is in shaping the way the United States goes about diplomacy. I mean, why is it or why does it need to be Congress's role to open up that space or to encourage the executive branch to pursue expeditionary diplomacy.
- [27:11]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, so I think like taking a step back, right? I think part of why our foreign policy is so distorted starts in Congress because we pass these huge defense budgets and then pass paltry funding for the State Department and usaid. So then when we go into other countries, it's the military who is then able to go out to these hard to reach areas. It's the military who has money that can actually provide assistance and work with other militaries in other countries. And so then we shouldn't be shocked when in other countries their militaries become much more powerful because that's the assistance we can give. And then that's where we see coups and other things happening. And so to me, it all starts from that fundamental issue which is that we've over securitized and over militarized our foreign policy and everything sort of flows from there. And that's where, you know, I think expeditionary diplomacy fits into that because in, you know, I worked in the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations at the State Department and we often saw that the travel requirements, the travel restrictions were so severe for, for our State Department folks that it was only the military that could show up to certain meetings in certain places because they were the only ones that could travel there. And then the face of, of America and other countries is our military. And that's not really what we want, right? We want our military to be doing military things. We want our diplomats to be representing the United States. And I think it's important that it comes from Congress because in many ways Congress is part of the problem. Right? We, I mean, I wasn't here yet, but we as Congress launched so many hearings and investigations on Benghazi. And while what happened in Benghazi was horrible, those investigations I think really overcorrected and made it so that, that diplomats couldn't really go out of the capitol or out of the perimeter at all. And that makes it really difficult to do their jobs. And if we have diplomats who are only in the capitals and only inside the perimeter, that means they're really only talking to elites. And that means we're not getting a real picture of what's happening in those countries. And I think that can, you know, contributes a lot to when we get surprised by things like people in Niger being angry at America for, you know, the role we are playing in military in their country. And you know, if you're only talking to elites, you're not getting that perspective. And then we're getting surprised by these coups and by these conflicts in other places because we're not actually really talking to the people of those countries. We're talking to the politicians and the elites. You know, in Somalia, as you probably know, the US Embassy is in the airport complex and diplomats aren't allowed to leave the airport complex to the point where when there are meetings that the US Government needs to attend outside of the airport complex. It is our military who is going because even our ambassador cannot go to those places because of security protocols. That shouldn't be how we're doing things. And so Michael Baumgartner and I both worked at the State Department. We both kind of worked in this space. And we really came together and looked at what do we need to do to move the ball forward and to make a more permissive environment so that our diplomats can really be doing their jobs.
- [30:32]
Scott R. Anderson
So a theme of a few of these pieces of legislation we've hit on is the bipartisan support. The fact that you found these partners across the aisle. And I want to drill into that in this foreign affairs context, when we all know partisan divisions make certain things hard in Congress, to say the least. I think that's obvious from the outside. I'm sure it's even more obvious from the inside. And it's a real pressure. I mean, inevitably, particularly in the foreign affairs space, a lot of what Congress is doing is responding to problems in the world that are being addressed one by way by the incumbent administration. And that is in a two party system, always going to line up awkwardly for one side of the aisle or the other in Congress. Yet you found ways on a couple of these issues to at least find bipartisan partners and maybe eventually drive it forward to progress through enactment. Talk to us about your strategy for doing that. Where do you think the areas for bipartisan cooperation in foreign affairs are? Are there certain techniques for identifying or approaching them? And then how do you turn bipartisan co sponsorship into legislation in the end?
- [31:31]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
It's a good question. And you know, I'm, I'm glad you asked it because I feel like in the news all they show is us fighting. And there is a lot of fighting. I don't want to minimize that and a lot of important things to fight about. But if you kind of go one level down to the super super of the super political things, there's actually a lot of bipartisan work happening. And in some ways we've actually been able to do more bipartisan work than ever because Speaker Johnson basically has lost control of the Republican conference. And so like this Congress alone, I think we've had six successful discharge petitions, which is the way you get around the Speaker. That's more than the entire rest of Congress combined, the history of Congress combined. And so, you know, the way I think about working in bipartisan way is that I don't think it's about how you get the most watered down lowest common denominator version of something that you can get everyone to agree with, because then in many ways you're like saying you're doing something and then you're not doing it. And that actually is worse and creates that sort of cycle of mistrust. The way I think about bipartisanship is what are the big things we each want to do? Where do those overlap, and then how can we find ways to work on that? And actually, in the foreign policy space, it doesn't always cross cut in the same sort of partisan lines you would think sometimes you'll actually see, like on war powers and Congress's role, it's often progressives in the Democratic Party and the Freedom Caucus and the Republican Party who are working together on those issues. And I do a lot of work with the Freedom Caucus, of all people, on those kind of war powers and other issues. And the key to me is figuring out, like, you know, Michael Baumgartner and I, he's a new member, we traveled together to Iraq, and he was talking about his experience there. And that's where, through those conversations and, you know, developing a really a real relationship with each other, we found that we had common interest in trying to figure out how we can get diplomats to be able to leave the perimeter more. Young Kim worked on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was a staffer on it before she got to Congress. And so she'd been thinking about these issues a lot. And while that's not really the experience of most of my colleagues here. Right. Most people start in state and local government and move up and are really much more focused, therefore, on those state and local issues that they're more comfortable with. For those of us who have worked in the executive branch, who have thought about foreign policy a lot, there is actually a lot more commonality than not in terms of, like, figuring out what we can do from Congress to make the institutions and the sort of structures of our foreign policy work better.
- [34:11]
Scott R. Anderson
So we're approaching a moment, obviously, with the midterm elections, where we may go from a Congress that has by slim margins, but nonetheless been controlled by the same party as the president to one where one or both chambers very well might switch control. The question then shifts to what the toolkits are that are available and particularly what. What new toolkits one or both chambers might develop. We saw during the second half of the first Trump administration, for example, the House lean into litigation much more than it's done previously, pursue more oversight techniques a little more aggressively through the courts, using the courts to back up their oversight authority, particularly in the foreign affairs national security space. What sort of tools do you expect a Democratically controlled House or Senate to lean on? Do you think they should lean on? And are there things that they can do to empower themselves to be more effective in their role of oversight or their other functions in the foreign affairs national security space come 2027, when we may have a Democratic House or Democratic Senate?
- [35:08]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, look, I think that we are going to have to do a lot of oversight and in the foreign policy space, specifically on Venezuela, on Iran, on the use of our military in domestic instances. And it will be incredibly important that we do that oversight. And I also do think we need to think about what are some structural changes we can make to make sure that Congress is actually able to do that oversight. And, you know, I don't have a fully fleshed out vision of what that looks like, but I think it could be, you know, making sure we have more staff at CRS who can do some of it and have that expertise, thinking about what kind of sort of legal advisory work we need to have Congress. So we're not only dependent on the executive branch's legal opinions on things. And I think oversight will be an incredibly important piece. I mean, we haven't even had a single open hearing on the Iran war yet, and we've lost 13 service members billions of dollars, and there's still not been a full, actual congressional hearing on this. We've had classified briefings, but no real hearing. And that's a problem. And that's something we need to fix when we're in the majority. But even amidst all of that oversight that we need to be doing, I also think there are still areas of opportunity where we can actually move the ball forward, even under this president. I think reforming foreign assistance and, you know, building that back up is one of those areas. I think potentially working on some war powers, things with our Republican colleagues and sort of the role of Congress is another area. And I do think that we need to be able to hold both of those things at the same time. We need to be doing rigorous, rigorous oversight and accountability work. And we need to still be looking for ways that we can come together and move the ball forward, even under whatever construct we're working in in the next Congress. I think both of those are possible. And, you know, in particular, the National Defense Authorization act tends to be a place where you do get some of those grand bargains, where you can make some of those deals, where you really can move the ball forward. And I'm hopeful that, that we will do it. You know, I've been working on a lot of military quality of life issues that I think we can done. In particular, you know, getting IVF and fertility treatment for service members, covered by tricare, the military insurance program. But I think there are others and really making sure that we're being strategic about sort of doing both of those things well, I think will be really important. And you know, I know your listeners often are the people who have the best ideas on how we can be doing our oversight work and rebuilding Congress's power. So please send them in because we are looking for all of the creative ideas that we can find.
- [37:50]
Scott R. Anderson
So I want to take kind of the blue sky one level higher now because we could in theory be at a point in the next few years of major reform. There's something we talked about a lot. A lot of people thought it might have come after 2020. Little areas did, but nothing quite at the scale people anticipated. There's still a talk about it, particularly because so many people do feel that Congress has either conceded to greater role in war, in foreign affairs and a variety of other set of issues, or is not been able to effectively push back on its institutional interests against this administration. There are people on both sides of the aisle that have maintained this around different sets of issues. What, particularly in this issue space, foreign affairs and national security, would you like to see Congress move towards as a body, as a legislative body? If it gets a majority that wants to reassert itself as an institution, what will that take in the set of issue spaces? Is it a state authorization bill? Is it changing the War Powers Resolution? What would be your top tier items to have Congress focus on if we get to one of these reform moments like we had, you know, after the Vietnam War?
- [38:54]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, no, I think we will be there and I'm hopeful we will be there. And I think it's incredibly important. I mean, Congress is a co equal branch. We should not be a passive observer. And I'll be honest, when I worked at the State Department, I didn't really think much about Congress. Congress has, you know, long abdicated its responsibility here. And frankly, the executive branch under presidents from both parties has long taken a very long leash. And I think we need to be clear eyed and honest about the fact that a lot of what the Trump administration is doing is based on precedent from, you know, Obama, Biden, Clinton, others, and that this hasn't, you know, he's taken it to the extreme and to its limit. I heard one scholar Say that it's like we left a bunch of loaded guns around the White House and, well, you know, he's the one who actually used them. Like, we're also responsible for leading all those loaded guns. And I think that's a really good way to think about it. And so I think we need to be looking at it from a couple of different angles. So one is, what are the institutional reforms? Congress needs to be able to actually be a co. Equal branch. And, you know, that looks like more capacity, potentially our own legal analysis, so we're not relying on the Office of Legal Counsel, things like that. The second is, what are the legislative fixes we need? Clearly, the War powers Resolution of 1973 isn't working as we want it to. I think we need to reform that. I think we need a reform of the Insurrection Act. I actually introduced that with Chris Duo because I think it's clear that that has the potential to be misused. And I think we should. To do a deep dive on all of the different things that the Trump administration has been misusing or has the potential to misuse and really clean them up and tighten them up and make sure that Congress's intent is clear there. So that's the. The legislative piece, right? So, you know, we need to. We need to build our own capacity. We need to look at closing loopholes and reasserting our power in terms of war powers. That also means repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF. That has been. Can stretch beyond any sort of rational interpretation of it, in my opinion. But then we also need to look at, you know, what are the proactive things Congress needs to do to reassert our power. And that's where I do think we need to get to a state authorization every year, just like we do for the Defense authorization. And I can tell you, I'm on both the Armed Services and the Foreign Affairs Committee, like, because we do a defense authorization every year, the military does feel more like they need to respond to us than the State Department feels like they need to respond to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Like that is just a fact. And so by doing that every year, by reasserting our. Our actual role, I think we will be able to change that dynamic in a helpful way. I also think we need to, you know, look at rebuilding foreign assistance, what that looks like, really make sure that it is coming from Congress, what those reforms look like and what the future looks like, and not ceding all of that to the executive branch, whether it's the Trump administration or an Incoming democratic administration. I think, you know, Congress needs to begin working on that now, and those ideas need to be coming from Congress and we need them to be in statute. And then I also think we need to look at like, you know, in a lot of ways, we've eroded our own authority by, you know, letting authorizations expire, but still appropriating funding, appropriating for things, you know, congress actually doesn't necessarily support. And so I think we need to look at all of those different things and tighten them up. So. So I wish I could give you like this is the one priority we need to do, but the fact of the matter is we kind of need to take a holistic, institution wide approach and look at all of the ways we need to address this.
- [42:32]
Scott R. Anderson
You know, part of your job as a representative isn't just representing your constituents and voters. It's also speaking to constituents and voters, helping them understand their role in the governmental process, in the democratic process. When you speak to your constituents, how do you, how do you encourage them to think about these foreign affairs issues and how they affect their lives? How do you move foreign affairs issues from the back burner to the front burner for voters? And are there lessons there that other legislators and frankly, other citizens might be able to take on board about how they think about this issue set when they go to the ballot box?
- [43:07]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, I mean, I talk a lot about it in terms of costs, right? We all notice and pay attention when there's a war in the news, news every day, when we're seeing bombs dropping and we know that that costs a lot of money. And if we actually as a government did the more preventative work, if we did our foreign assistance, well, if we did that kind of conflict prevention, well, that actually would save us a lot of money, but it doesn't end up in the news. And so to me, talking about, you know, how we can do that prevention work tends to really resonate. And again, my district is not necessarily representative here. Here we are a very international place. So it just by its nature, people feel the foreign policy more. But I also think we don't tap enough into diaspora communities. I think diaspora communities are a really great bridge because they see how u. S. Foreign policy directly impacts their loved ones in other countries, and they can help translate that to the communities that they live in now. And I feel like, like we as a foreign policy establishment haven't done enough to. To really tap into that, that diaspora community. But the last thing is, I feel like part of why we haven't been able to really resonate with people on foreign policy is because for a lot of people they felt like there's this bipartisan elite consensus in Washington, D.C. that doesn't really take into their lives or their needs and we haven't really given them a vision of what a foreign policy can look like that will actually make their lives better and will produce a sort of common good that they can be a part of. And so I do think a big part of this is also having a proactive forward looking vision of the role the United States can play in the world as it looks now. Not harking back to some nostalgia about US hegemony and unipolarity, but how the US can be a leader in the world as it looks now in increasing multipolarity and then why having that leadership role matters for Americans and for Americans national security. Whether it's because we need those coalitions to actually be able to have more power in this increasingly multipolar world or because we need
- [45:27]
Contentful/Siemens Marketer
want to change the efficiency game AI it automate tedious tasks to spend more time on the future, transform the everyday with Siemens
- [45:43]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
partners to actually be able to address things like pandemics and climate change and AI and things that are supreme national by their very nature and that we won't be able to solve on our own. And I think the more we can have that sort of forward looking approach, the more people will feel bought in to what the US Role in the world can be and why they want to be a part of it.
- [46:06]
Scott R. Anderson
Well, we are out of time, but that's an interesting and a good note I think, to end our conversation on Representative Sarah Jacobs, thank you for joining us here today on the Lawfare Podcast.
- [46:14]
Representative Sarah Jacobs
Thanks for having me.
- [46:19]
Scott R. Anderson
The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad free, you can become a Lawfare material supporter@lawfaremedia.org support supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help and be sure to check out our other shows including National Security Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents Podcast podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work@lawfourmedia.org the podcast is edited by Jen Patchett with audio engineering by Hazel Hoffman of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music and as always, thank you for listening.