The Senate is set Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill allowing the victims of terrorism to sue foreign countries, an embarrassing foreign policy setback months before he leaves office.

Congressional sources on both sides of the Capitol say the White House’s lobbying effort to sustain Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has been muted, and they expect the override to pass overwhelmingly.

ADVERTISEMENT

It would be the first override of Obama’s presidency, and one of the biggest legislative wins of the Republican-controlled Congress over Obama.

Yet Republicans, who have been eager to tout their accomplishments this year, don’t plan on spiking the football, perhaps because the override is also a big win for Democrats such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer Chuck SchumerJacobin editor: Primarying Schumer would force him to fight Trump's SCOTUS nominee CNN's Toobin: Democrats are 'wimps' who won't 'have the guts' to add Supreme Court seats Republican senator says plans to confirm justice before election 'completely consistent with the precedent' MORE (N.Y.), who is trying to recapture the Senate for his party.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGraham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Trump puts Supreme Court fight at center of Ohio rally The Memo: Dems face balancing act on SCOTUS fight MORE (R-Ky.) doesn’t have a press conference planned after the override vote. Senate GOP Whip John Cornyn John CornynTumultuous court battle upends fight for Senate Texas Democrats roll out first wave of planned digital ads as Election Day nears Calls grow for Biden to expand election map in final sprint MORE (Texas), one of the lead sponsors, doesn’t have anything on tap yet, either.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker Robert (Bob) Phillips CorkerHas Congress captured Russia policy? Tennessee primary battle turns nasty for Republicans Cheney clashes with Trump MORE (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGraham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Fox's Napolitano: Supreme Court confirmation hearings will be 'World War III of political battles' Grassley, Ernst pledge to 'evaluate' Trump's Supreme Court nominee MORE (R-S.C.), who have tried to put together alternative legislation to avert the override, last week conceded there’s likely no stopping it.

The legislation allows foreign sponsors of terrorism to be sued in U.S. courts and is strongly supported by the families of Sept. 11 victims. The legislation is aimed at facilitating lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

The bill passed the Senate and the House unanimously earlier this year and last week received backing from both Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonJoe Biden looks to expand election battleground into Trump country Biden leads Trump by 12 points among Catholic voters: poll The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden goes on offense MORE and Republican nominee Donald Trump Donald John TrumpBubba Wallace to be driver of Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin NASCAR team Graham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Southwest Airlines, unions call for six-month extension of government aid MORE.

Overturning the veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers, and Corker said the override would be “a fait accompli” if senators voted on the politically charged issue before the elections.

“Unless there are 34 people willing to fall on their swords over this, it’s probably not worth falling on your sword over,” he told The Washington Post.

Graham, who said earlier this month that he did not believe the Saudi government was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks and scrambled with Corker to make changes to the legislation, says he will probably join his colleagues in voting for the override.

“If nobody’s trying to accommodate this problem, we’re just gonna vote … and if I have to vote, I’m going to vote to override the veto,” Graham told The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C.

A Senate aide said the White House waited too long to try to kill the bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote in May.

“It is a political malpractice that the full press is coming so late,” said the aide.

Another Senate aide said the White House appears to realize that not much can be done at this point.

“It doesn’t seem to me that they’re really trying that hard,” the aide said. “The White House is kind of out of options.”

In his veto message to the Senate, Obama warned the legislation would undermine U.S. security by letting private litigants and the courts decide whether foreign governments have sponsored terrorism — a task currently left to national security and foreign policy professionals.

Obama noted the United States has a larger international presence than any other country and argued that creating an exception to sovereign immunity would subject U.S. military and other government personnel to foreign court proceedings.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday declined to describe the president’s lobbying effort in detail but said his team has contacted various lawmakers.

“The president’s views are well known,” he told reporters. “The president’s had an opportunity to convey those to members of Congress at different points.”

Secretary of State John Kerry John Forbes KerryThe Memo: Warning signs flash for Trump on debates Divided country, divided church TV ads favored Biden 2-1 in past month MORE is scheduled to fly back from Colombia, where he attended a peace accord signing, with Sen. Ben Cardin Benjamin (Ben) Louis CardinCongress must finish work on popular conservation bill before time runs out PPP application window closes after coronavirus talks deadlock Congress eyes tighter restrictions on next round of small business help MORE (Md.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Cardin said he would carefully review Obama’s veto statement before deciding how he would vote on the override, so Kerry will have ample opportunity to make the administration’s case.

Senate aides say the bill’s sponsors made a significant concession to the administration earlier this year when they included language allowing future presidents to halt a lawsuit against a foreign government through a court-mediated process.

If the vote succeeds in the Senate, the bill will head to the House, where an override is expected to sail through with strong bipartisan support despite concerns raised by Reps. Mac Thornberry (Texas) and Adam Smith David (Adam) Adam SmithWhen 'Buy American' and common sense collide Overnight Defense: Marine Corps brushes off criticism of Marines' appearance in GOP convention video | US troops injured in collision with Russian vehicle in Syria | Dems ask for probe of Vindman retaliation allegations Democrats press Pentagon watchdog to probe allegations of retaliation against Vindman brothers MORE (Wash.), the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat, respectively, of the Armed Services Committee.

Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanKenosha will be a good bellwether in 2020 At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates MORE (R-Wis.), who was initially skeptical of the legislation, told reporters last week that he expects there will be enough votes to override the veto.

“I do have concerns about the legislation,” Ryan said, noting that as Speaker, he usually does not vote. “But I’m going to let Congress work its will, because that’s what Congress does. I do think the votes are there for the override.”

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), the second-highest-ranking House GOP leader, said he also believes it will pass.

“I would think there were enough votes to override, but first it goes through the Senate,” he told reporters.

McCarthy said he’s “inclined” to vote to override the veto but will meet with Thornberry before making a final decision.

Thornberry circulated a letter to all of his Republican colleagues Friday warning the legislation would put U.S. military and intelligence personnel at risk.

He argued that if other countries were to take similar measures, “the risks of discovery or trial in foreign courts, including the questioning of government employees under oath, will disclose sensitive information and subject Americans to legal jeopardy.”

Smith made similar points in a letter circulated among members of his caucus.

“We must protect the people we rely on to carry out U.S. policy, and these legal safeguards are essential in doing so,” he wrote in a letter dated Sunday.

Jordan Fabian and Scott Wong contributed.