Democrats Turn the December 11 Funding Deadline Into a Test Over Iran War Money

Just days after winning control of Congress, Democrats in Washington are split over a question that could decide the future of the war in Iran: should they use a government funding deadline on December 11 to cut off money for the war, even if it means risking another government shutdown?

A growing group of Democratic lawmakers says yes. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Representative Ro Khanna of California are leading the push, arguing that voters handed Democrats a clear instruction in the midterm elections on November 3: end the war. But the party’s leaders have not yet agreed, and some Democrats worry that forcing a shutdown fight in December would be a mistake when their new majorities take power in January.

The December 11 deadline is the first real test of what the Democrats’ election victory means in practice — and the answer will shape the war, the US budget, and the start of the new Congress.

What happened

The push began within days of the midterm elections, in which Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress. They do not take their seats as the majority until January. But the current government funding runs out on December 11, and Congress must pass a new spending bill before then, or the federal government shuts down.

Van Hollen and Khanna want Democrats to refuse to support any funding bill that keeps paying for the war in Iran. Their idea is simple: use the votes Republicans need to keep the government open as leverage to force limits on the war.

“I am not planning to vote for anything that provides any funding to fuel the war in Iran,” Van Hollen told The Washington Sun. “If the president wants to tell the country that he is prepared to shut down the United States government in order to conduct an illegal and senseless war in Iran, that will be his choice.”

Khanna went further, openly backing the idea of risking a shutdown to force the issue. Speaking on “The Lever” podcast, he was asked whether Democrats should block a short-term funding bill unless Congress restricts money for the war.

“Of course, we should,” he said. “We just would have won an election because people are upset at higher food and gas prices and diesel prices because of the war in Iran. Our first aim should be to try to stop this war, and we should use every tool at our disposal to do that.”

Khanna also argued that the idea is not limited to the party’s left wing. “I don’t think this is a progressive position. I think this is a ‘Hey, I paid attention to the election,'” he said. “They just hand you a mandate. Don’t you think the first thing you would do is try to stop the war in Iran?”

Why December 11 matters

The December 11 date is powerful because of how the US Senate works. Republicans hold 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats. To pass most spending bills, they generally need 60 votes, which means they need at least seven Democratic votes. If Democrats withhold those votes, the government runs out of money.

That gives the minority party real leverage — but only if it is willing to use it. A government shutdown stops pay for hundreds of thousands of federal workers, closes national parks and museums, and disrupts services across the country. It is a blunt tool, and the party seen as causing it usually pays a political price.

Van Hollen framed it as a question of whether the party will listen to voters. “I think this is a really important moment for Democratic leadership,” he said. “Are the Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, going to listen to the verdict of the American people and vote to end this war?”

“It would be a betrayal of the voters to be complicit in keeping the war going,” he added.

The Vietnam-era model

The plan Van Hollen and his colleagues have discussed is modelled on a measure Congress passed in 1973, near the end of the Vietnam War. That law barred the use of funds for US military operations in Southeast Asia, including money Congress had already approved. American bombing in Cambodia ended when the ban took effect, roughly six weeks after President Richard Nixon signed the legislation.

The idea now would be similar: a law saying that no federal money may be spent on conducting the war in Iran. “The idea would be to say no funds may be expended to conduct the war in Iran,” Van Hollen said.

The comparison matters because it shows that Congress has done this before — and that it worked. Supporters argue that the power of the purse is the strongest tool Congress has against a war it did not authorise, and that it does not require the president’s agreement in the same way that a negotiated peace deal would.

Critics of the comparison point out that the situations are different. In 1973, the Vietnam War was already deeply unpopular after years of fighting, and Nixon was weakened by the Watergate scandal. President Donald Trump, by contrast, has shown no sign of backing down. A funding ban would almost certainly face a presidential veto if it reached his desk as a standalone bill — which is why its supporters want it attached to a must-pass spending bill instead.

The bills already on the table

The December deadline is not the first time Democrats have tried to cut off war funding through legislation. Three bills are already in play:

The No WAR Act (H.R. 8592). Introduced on April 30 by Representative Val Hoyle of Oregon, this bill would block funding for unauthorised hostilities against Iran through the budget reconciliation process. It had 61 co-sponsors as of November 6, all Democrats.

The No Funds for Illegal Wars Act (H.R. 9964). Introduced on July 27 by Representative John Larson of Connecticut, this is a broader bill that would ban spending on military action that Congress has not authorised, with some exceptions.

The No War Against Iran Act (S. 2087). Introduced in the Senate by independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, with the backing of seven Democratic senators, this bill would ban funding for unauthorised military force against Iran.

What Democratic leaders say

So far, the party’s leaders have been careful not to commit. Representatives for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment from The Washington Sun. That silence is telling: Schumer is expected to lead the Democratic majority in the Senate next year, and his position will be decisive.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that Democrats will “look at every tool we have available to us to bring this disastrous war to an end.” That is supportive language, but it stops short of promising to block a funding bill.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is expected to become Speaker of the House in January, said the party’s “top priority” is “to reach a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people and prioritizes their economic well-being, health and safety.” He added: “It is clear from this election that the American people are demanding accountability and an end to the war.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has taken the clearest position. She is focused on keeping war funding out of the regular defence spending bill for 2027, and she said: “Democrats will absolutely not fund Trump’s war of choice with Iran that has increased costs on American families and made us less safe.”

Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona said ending the war could be a condition of the funding negotiations, but he suggested Democrats should also use their leverage for other priorities, including reversing cuts to Medicaid, the public health programme for low-income Americans.

The pressure from outside Congress

The pressure on Democratic leaders is not only coming from inside Congress. More than two dozen anti-war organisations — including Demand Progress, Common Defense, Peace Action and the National Iranian American Council — have signed a draft letter calling on lawmakers to commit publicly to blocking a spending bill before negotiations begin.

“The most appropriate and immediate opportunity comes when current government funding expires on December 11, 2026,” the letter says. “Congress must ensure that any subsequent continuing resolution, appropriations measure, or other funding or authorization legislation explicitly prohibits any funding for the ongoing, unauthorized hostilities against Iran.”

The group Just Foreign Policy, which organised the letter, posted on X: “Americans voted to end the war NOW.”

The case for acting now

Supporters of the December strategy make three main arguments.

First, the mandate. Democrats won the midterms in large part because voters were angry about the cost of living. Khanna’s argument is that the war is part of that cost: higher fuel, food and diesel prices, linked to the disruption the war has caused to oil supplies and shipping. If voters chose Democrats to end the war, the party should start with the first vote it gets.

Second, the cost. Supporters say the war is costing billions that could be spent at home, and that every month of delay adds to the bill.

Third, the leverage. Democrats will never have a better moment than December. Right now, Republicans need Democratic votes to keep the government open. Once the new Congress is seated in January, Democrats will have the majority — but they will also face a president who can veto their bills. The December deadline is a rare moment when the party can force a negotiation on its own terms.

The case for waiting

Other Democrats are not convinced, and their worries are practical.

The first worry is the shutdown itself. Democrats forced two government shutdown fights over the past year, and failed to achieve their demands both times. A third shutdown — this time just weeks after an election victory, and just before Christmas — could backfire, handing Trump a chance to blame Democrats for closed services and unpaid workers.

The second worry is timing. The new Democratic majorities take power in January, only a few weeks after the December deadline. Some Democrats argue it makes more sense to wait, pass a short-term funding bill now, and then use the full-year budget in early 2027 to impose restrictions on the war from a position of strength — as the majority, not the minority.

One congressional Democratic aide warned that a long funding fight in December could consume the opening weeks of the new majority, derailing the oversight hearings Democrats promised during the campaign.

The third worry is that a funding ban might not end the war anyway. The administration could shift money from other military accounts, or argue that some operations fall outside the ban. A ban written in a hurry, under shutdown pressure, might have loopholes that a carefully written law would not.

What the war looks like now

The war began in late February 2026, and it is now in its ninth month. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, pushed up energy prices, and strained the economies of countries across the region, including Pakistan, where reduced gas supplies have already caused power cuts.

Diplomacy has not stopped. Pakistan’s military said this week it was “cautiously optimistic” about mediation efforts between Iran and the United States, after a high-level delegation that included Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, visited Tehran. But there is no deal yet, and the fighting continues.

What happens next

Three things will decide how this plays out.

First, what Schumer and Jeffries decide. If the two leaders embrace the December strategy, Democrats will go into the funding talks with a united demand. If they stay noncommittal, the push from Van Hollen, Khanna and the anti-war groups will remain a pressure campaign rather than the party’s position.

Second, whether Republicans negotiate. With 53 Senate seats, Republicans need Democratic votes. If Democrats hold together, Republicans must either accept some restriction on war funding or accept a shutdown. But if a handful of Democrats break ranks and vote for a clean funding bill, the leverage disappears.

Third, what happens in the talks themselves. Even if Democrats force a restriction into the December bill, the most likely outcome is a short-term extension into early 2027 — not a permanent ban. The real fight over war funding would then move to the full-year budget, where the new Democratic majorities will have to decide again how far they are willing to go.

Frequently asked questions

What is the December 11 deadline?

It is the date when the current government funding law expires. Congress must pass a new spending bill by then, or parts of the federal government shut down.

What do Van Hollen and Khanna want?

They want Democrats to refuse to support any funding bill unless it bars federal money from being spent on the war in Iran. Their model is a 1973 law that cut off funds for the Vietnam War.

Why do Republicans need Democratic votes?

Republicans hold 53 of the 100 Senate seats, but most spending bills need 60 votes to pass. That means at least seven Democrats must vote with them.

What is a continuing resolution?

It is a short-term spending bill that keeps the government funded at current levels while Congress negotiates a full-year budget. Lawmakers are expected to pass one in December to extend funding into early 2027.

Would a funding ban end the war?

Supporters say it would force the administration to stop combat operations, as the 1973 measure did in Cambodia. Critics say the administration could find other money. No one can say for certain until it is tried.

When do the new Democratic majorities take power?

In January 2027, when the new Congress is seated after the November 3 midterm elections.

Conclusion

The fight over the December 11 funding deadline is about more than a date on the calendar. It is the first test of whether the Democrats’ midterm victory will change the course of the war in Iran — or whether the party will wait until January and hope that holding the majority is enough.

Van Hollen and Khanna are betting that voters did not elect Democrats to wait. Their leaders are weighing whether acting now risks the very majority voters just gave them. And in the background, the war goes on, at a cost of billions of dollars and with no end in sight.

Whatever happens on December 11, the decision will set the tone for the new Congress. If Democrats use the deadline to force a restriction on war funding, it will be the most direct challenge to the war since it began. If they pass a clean funding bill and wait, the anti-war wing of the party will ask what the election was for.

Sources

• The Washington Sun, “Progressives Revive Vietnam-Era Strategy to Defund Iran War”, 6 November 2026: https://www.washingtonsun.com/congress/progressives-revive-vietnam-era-strategy-defund-iran-war
• Press TV, “Democrats seeking to block funding of war on Iran before taking control of Congress”, 6 November 2026: https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/11/06/780109/some-democrats-will-not-wait-until-january-3-to-block-trumps-war-on-iran
• The Frontier, “Democrats turn December funding deadline into Iran war test”, 7 November 2026: https://thefrontier.fm/article/2026/11/07/democrats-turn-december-funding-deadline-iran
• 567politics, “Who is moving to cut Iran war funding: the bills, votes and promises”, 6 November 2026: https://567politics.com/news/iran-war-funding-cutoff-lawmakers-khanna-van-hollen-massie-davidson-bills-votes-2026
• News Ghana, “Advocacy Group Urges Democrats to Block Iran War Funding”, 4 November 2026: https://newsghana.com.gh/advocacy-group-urges-democrats-to-block-iran-war-funding/

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.