One month on from the start of Russian President Vladimir Putin's all-out assault on Ukraine, most progressives in Congress have few critiques to offer on President Joe Biden's response to the war.
"I think the Biden administration is actually doing a really good job on navigating this," said Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chairwoman of the 98-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), in a recent interview with Insider at the Capitol. "Personally, I think we should try to get out of the way as much as possible, and allow the White House and the people who are in the negotiating positions to do their jobs."
But according to Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — a Somali refugee, a "Squad" member, the progressive caucus's whip, and a dogged critic of US foreign policy who's not afraid to lambaste her Democratic colleagues — progressives are failing to stand up for their convictions as America's war response violates long-held progressive values.
"A lot of progressives, I feel, have abandoned their principles of being anti-war, anti-broad-based sanctions, anti-harmful policies that not only impact us here in the United States, but inadvertently impact the civilians of our adversary regime," Omar told Insider at the Capitol earlier this month.
Omar has specifically criticized the enactment of broad-based sanctions that are expected, at least in the short term, to harm both ordinary Russian citizens and civilians across the globe. She has also raised questions about the size and scope of the lethal military assistance being given to Ukraine, warning of unintended and potentially disastrous consequences. And she was one of just two House Democrats who voted against a bill to ban the importation of Russian oil earlier this month, citing both the impact it would have on the Russian people and her contention that a ban codified into law would be difficult to repeal down the line.
Omar's dissent is reminiscent of Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee's lonely opposition to the the sweeping 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which allowed the Bush administration — and three subsequent administrations — `to wage a wide-ranging "war on terror" after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Though a controversial position at the time, Lee's vote against the AUMF — the only "no" vote in Congress — has come to be widely lauded by progressives as prescient of the follies of America's long wars in the Middle East. Omar invoked Lee's criticism of US interventionism in explaining her own position on the war in Ukraine.
"You know, there's a reason a lot of us have admired people like Congresswoman Barbara Lee, because she was ready to remember her humanity, and the humanity of others," Omar said.
But even Lee mostly offered praise for Biden when asked by Insider about the administration's response, arguing that Biden has been "very strategic" and "very clear about the fact that he's not going to send United States troops" into Ukraine.
For now, Omar finds herself in a lonely position in Congress when it comes to Russia's war.
"I've just been really disappointed by a lot of our progressive members," Omar told Insider, "especially those that have been leading the efforts to shift us from this muscle memory that forces us to do these really harmful sanctions."
'We didn't write those bills'
In late January, as concerns about a Russian military build-up on the Ukrainian border prompted the administration to ramp up contingency planning with European allies, progressives called for Biden to focus on diplomacy while highlighting the need for "robust negotiations and compromise."
"We have significant concerns that new troop deployments, sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions, and a flood of hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weapons will only raise tensions and increase the chance of miscalculation," Jayapal and Lee said in a statement on behalf of the caucus.
But as tensions rose and war broke out, Biden sent thousands of troops to Poland, Germany, Romania, and the Baltic states, enacted sanctions that have triggered soaring inflation and potential food shortages due to panic-buying in Russia, and supplied hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine's military alongside other Western countries.
Progressives were also asked to swallow a 5.6% increase in defense spending as part of the broader $1.5 trillion "omnibus" spending bill that funds programs across the government. Fifteen progressive Democrats — including Jayapal, Lee, Pocan, and Omar — voted against the boost in defense spending. That same bill also provided $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine, $3.5 billion of which will go to military supplies, which has also drawn the ire of some progressives.
But former CPC chair Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested that the involvement of America's military in a direct conflict with Russia — which Biden has repeatedly insisted will not happen — remains the primary concern for progressives.
"The administration, right now, keeps saying they don't want to bring troops in because they don't want to start a war," Pocan told Insider at the Capitol. "That's the main thing we could be asking for." Pocan added that "in most cases" the sweeping sanctions the administrations has imposed on Russia are "the best path forward."
"So I don't know if there is a great divide between where progressives are and the Biden administration," he added.
Jayapal, for her part, argued that Biden has pursued the path most favored by progressives, pointing to the several statements by the caucus amid the crisis. On the day of the Russian invasion, she and Lee called on the administration to pursue a diplomatic solution and minimize civilian harm.
"We're standing behind a progressive proposal for de-escalation and diplomacy, which the Biden administration is undertaking," she told Insider. "I mean, we were clear in the very beginning what we stand for, and I think we've been insistent."
She also said that progressives' influence can be seen in the way that recent legislative action punishing Russia has granted flexibility to the executive branch. It was that flexibility — along with right-wing fears that Biden would use his sanctions authority to target conservatives — that led eight House Republicans to oppose recent legislation suspending normal trade relations with Russia, which all Democrats supported.
—Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) March 17, 2022
"We've also been very clear that if we move to imminent hostilities, that needs to come back to us under the War Powers Act," she added.
But Omar doesn't believe opposition to military action is enough. Omar and Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, a fellow "Squad" member and the other House Democrat to vote against the Russian oil ban, have both criticized the lethal military aid the US and its allies have provided Ukraine.
"I support giving Ukraine the resources it needs to defend its people, I just have legitimate concerns about the size and scope," Omar wrote in a series of tweets suggesting that sending billions in military aid to Ukraine would bring consequences that are "unpredictable" and "likely" disastrous. "Criticizing and questioning is my job as a leader and a member of Congress," she added.
Bush said she felt that progressives have been sidelined amid the conflict and weren't being included in the conversation.
"We didn't write those bills. Why do I have to just automatically support something?" she told Insider at a briefing with reporters this month. "Think about everybody in the caucus, and where we stand on some of these issues, and then write the bill."
Jayapal pointed to the urgency of the crisis.
"Yeah, this is what happens in a legislative environment where people are watching people die," she quipped when asked about the sentiment raised by Bush.
Both Omar and Bush argued that Congress' foreign policy decisions shouldn't be motivated by emotional responses to the tragedy in Ukraine.
"I want them to come back home, to remember who they are, and not be swept up by the moment," Omar said of fellow Democrats. "It's easy for fear, for anger, for rage, for the moment to take you."
That's a sentiment that Bush shares as well. "There are people who were pushing, saying hey, we want to see force from you, from our country," said Bush. "That's not who I am."
Opposing broad-based sanctions
Omar has long been a vocal opponent of far-reaching sanctions that often impact civilians more than political elites. In a 2019 Washington Post op-ed, she argued that similar sanctions against American adversaries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran have been enacted without a clear plan for how and when to lift them, all while the populations of those countries bear the brunt of the pain while the ruling regime even strengthens in some cases.
"I don't support broad-based sanctions on any country, adversary or ally," Omar declared during a recent floor speech outlining her position and her wider concerns about a potential armed conflict. "They are economic warfare, and we should all oppose them like we oppose military actions."
Omar told Insider that while there's been "some discussion" within the progressive caucus about issues like broad-based sanctions and weapons transfers, it's "not to the degree I would like."
And she isn't alone among progressives in raising that issue.
"We had a very large concern when the sanctions were first proposed, if they were going to hurt everyday Russian people," said Democratic Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez of New York. "We are very much against that. That's very much against my values."
But Ocasio-Cortez, unlike Omar and Bush, ultimately voted for the Russian oil ban. She argued that the impact of the ban on ordinary Russian civilians would be minimal.
"We're talking about single digits," the New York congresswoman said, referring to the percentage of American oil that comes from Russia. She indicated that she was concerned about how private companies suspending operations, including payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, would impact Russian citizens. "We felt confident that [banning Russian oil] would not have that level of effect."
According to data from the Energy Information Administration, just 8% of the US's oil imports in 2021 came from Russia.
Despite their opposition to broad-based sanctions, Bush and Omar insist that they support sanctions that narrowly target powerful elites.
"I think people forget that I have introduced my own pieces of legislation to sanction people like MBS," said Omar, referring to a bill she introduced targeting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman last March. "Of course I am not blanketly against sanctions, but I want sanctions to be targeted, I want them to be smart, I don't want them to hurt the people who don't have a choice in the country they are born in."
Ultimately, Omar and Bush's votes against the oil ban represented a protest of the broader strategy of pursuing punishing economic sanctions against Russia without a clear plan as to when and how they might be lifted. Jayapal and Lee made a nod towards the issue in a statement on the bill, but every other progressive still voted for the ban.
An unclear future for the war and its political ramifications
At the heart of the matter are the questions of how much influence progressives truly have, how they should wield it, and which battles are worth fighting in the midst of a war that's killed thousands and displaced an estimated 10 million people in just the last month.
Progressives are in a difficult place. After enjoying significant influence with the President as he pursued an ambitious domestic agenda in 2021, the left is now pushing Biden to enact much of that agenda via executive order given the difficulty of moving ambitious legislation through Congress during a midterm election year. And Biden increasingly faces pressure from the right on inflation, rising energy costs triggered in part by the war, and calls to send more lethal aid to Ukraine.
While optimism has risen in the West that Ukraine may be able to defeat the Russian onslaught, it's also possible that the war could harden into a protracted stalemate, one in which the continued presence of sanctions and consistent flow of weapons makes life harder for everyday Russians and Ukrainians.
And if the conflict were to escalate and come to involve American troops, a prospect Omar fears, then the stance that she and Bush are taking now will likely be seen as prescient. After all, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's support for the Iraq War — the authorization of which garnered 77 votes in the Senate in 2002 — contributed to her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. While Biden has seen his approval numbers rise since the war broke out, the dynamic situation could still become a political liability for him.
For now, progressives are watching carefully.
"We rarely get opportunities where we can have a clear conscience about the work that we are doing," said Omar. "And when you get those moments, that's when you've got to remember your conscience."