It also includes a politically controversial measure to bolster state and local laws to limit the reach of a global anti-Israel boycott campaign protesting the occupation of Palestinian territories — a provision that could spark challenges in the House, where some of the party’s newest members are opposed to efforts seeking to limit criticism of Israel.

AD

AD

In the Senate, however, the bill became a flash point for the congressional GOP’s standoff with Trump after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered last week an amendment effectively rebuking the president for announcing his intention to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

The language McConnell successfully inserted, with the support of most Republicans and about half of Senate Democrats, trumpeted the work that U.S. troops have done in battling the Islamic State and the importance of their continued presence for the stability of the region and the security of U.S. allies. Critically, it also declared that the Islamic State continues to pose a threat — directly countering Trump’s rationale for removing troops from Syria.

Trump’s December order had caused a rare revolt in the GOP, whose members were particularly shaken when former defense secretary Jim Mattis decided to resign in the wake of Trump’s announcement. But though Democrats have also criticized the president’s move, about half of those in the Senate balked at signing onto the McConnell-led effort to rebuke him, fearing that a vote calling on Trump to leave troops in Syria and Afghanistan might be construed as an endorsement of endless war.

AD

AD

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert Menendez (N.J.) sought to allay such concerns Monday, with a measure that declared that the amendment could not be interpreted as legal authorization of the military campaigns in Syria and Afghanistan. Many Democrats have been agitating for Congress to pass a new authorization for use of military force to specifically approve the engagements against al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and related groups, arguing that the 2001 authorization the administration is relying on is overextended and out of date.