Congressional Republicans will defer to President Trump on many things, but on foreign policy, they are more willing to assert themselves. That’s been clear in the aftermath of Trump’s announced withdrawal from Syria and the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But a more subtle sign of the president’s loose grip on lawmakers was the emergence of an unlikely alliance against him that has been described by one of its participants as a sign of the “end times.”
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., represent opposite poles of the GOP foreign-policy spectrum. Graham is hawkish, insisting that if we do not fight America’s enemies “over there,” we will instead face them “over here.” Paul is a skeptic of military intervention, especially in the Middle East, who argues the U.S. is fighting too many wars with too little congressional authorization.
On Saudi Arabia, the two of them are united: They want to punish Riyadh for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and are exasperated by the president’s unwillingness to confront Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump wants to continue to have a close relationship with the Saudi regime, which he views as an important counterweight to Iranian influence in the region.
Normally, the two senators are more likely to be hurling insults at each other than collaborating. Paul has called Graham a “warmonger” and a “danger” to national security. Graham rips the junior senator from Kentucky as an isolationist, saying in 2018 “there is no threat to America that Sen. Paul will not retreat from.”
Yet, on consequences for the Saudis, they are united. “We’re finding common purpose and fighting back against behavior that’s so out of the norm that it can’t be ignored,” Graham told McClatchy News.
The two aren’t meeting in the middle so much as Graham is finding himself more comfortable on Paul’s turf.
“Sen. Paul has been consistent in his opposition to Saudi Arabia’s flagrant human rights violations and willingness to spread a radical ideology,” a Paul spokesman told the Washington Examiner. “His opposition predates President Trump. In fact, he pushed to cut off arms to the Saudis under President [Barack] Obama, too. We welcome anyone who has genuinely evolved on the dangers which Saudi Arabia presents to the world.”
The odd-couple pairing isn’t a good sign for the commander-in-chief’s ability to unite the party behind his national security decisions. “Trump is increasingly isolated, especially on big foreign policy issues,” said Republican strategist Alex Conant. “Given the Senate’s role in foreign policy, it’s a weak position for him to be in. To be effective, he needs to work with his allies in the Senate — not drive them away, as he’s done on Saudi Arabia and now Syria. It’s also evidence that some Senate Republicans see little political cost to publicly breaking with Trump on big issues.”
Despite their ideological differences, Graham and Paul generally have taken a similar approach to dealing with Trump. They were very anti-Trump when they ran against him for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Paul called Trump an “orange-faced windbag” while Graham dubbed the businessman and reality TV star a “jackass” and a “kook.”
Trump repaid in kind. “He gave out one guy’s phone number and called the other guy a midget,” recalled Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “If we nominate Trump,” Graham predicted during the campaign, “we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”
Instead, Trump was nominated and then elected president. Graham never made it out of the undercard debates while Paul dropped out after a disappointing finish in the Iowa caucuses. The two then decided it was better to be a friend of the White House and to try to influence the president than to position themselves as anti-Trump gadflies.
“You’ve got to understand how Paul and Graham went from Never Trumpers to people who have cracked the Trump matrix and have his ear,” said O’Connell. “When you disagree with a Trump position outside of your core issues, rather than running to CNN or MSNBC or to the first available mic to share your disgust, you keep your mouth shut, period. And when you agree with a Trump position outside of your core issues, you cheer on his position louder than he does and you sprint to a Trump-friendly media outlet and ring a cowbell as loud as you can.”
That’s how the two senators became frequent golfing buddies with the president despite frequently disagreeing with him. FiveThirtyEight’s tracker actually shows Paul as one of the least reliable votes for Trump’s agenda in the Senate, opposing him 27 percent of the time while representing a state the president carried by nearly 30 points. All this without raising the president’s ire, as during the campaign. “Rand Paul has never let me down,” Trump declared last year.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and former Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., have voted with Trump somewhat more often than Paul yet have been highly public in their criticisms. Both are persona non grata in the White House. It’s also one reason Flake is out of a job, declining to even seek another term, fearing he’d lose the Republican primary.
Paul and Graham have worked especially hard to win Trump over to their respective foreign policy positions. Graham appeals to Trump’s Jacksonian impulse to be tough and “bomb the hell” out of America’s enemies. Paul leans on Trump’s “America First” instincts and their shared criticism of regime change in the Middle East, particularly the Iraq War.
“In terms of foreign policy, here’s where Trump and Paul agree: They believe the U.S. shouldn’t have such a large footprint in the Middle East,” O’Connell said. “Where he agrees with Graham is that you have to protect Israel and thwart Iran at every turn … If you took Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul and married them, they would actually be the perfect personification of Trump’s position in the Middle East.”
Syria might be where they divorce. Graham led a chorus of Republicans on Capitol Hill who looked on in horror as Trump decided to pull out of Syria, contemplated doing the same in Afghanistan and parted ways with Mattis, the defense secretary Washington views as a rare source of stability inside the administration. Paul has become Trump’s biggest cheerleader on Syria and is encouraging him to follow through on Afghanistan.
“President Trump — I will help you any way I can … but because you’re a Republican, I’m not going to ignore what I believe,” Graham told reporters at a press conference. “I’m going to give you an honest evaluation. I was willing to support a Democrat if he followed sound military advice. I’m willing to fight a Republican if you don’t.”
Graham also called Trump’s Syria decision “Obama-like” — one of the worst insults inside Trump World — and a “stain” on the country. “Withdrawal of this small American force in Syria would be a huge Obama-like mistake,” he said, later elaborating in a statement: “While American patience in confronting radical Islam may wane, the radical Islamists’ passion to kill Americans and our allies never wavers.”
“An American withdrawal at this time would be a big win for ISIS, Iran, Bashar [Assad] of Syria, and Russia,” Graham added. “I fear it will lead to devastating consequences for our nation, the region, and throughout the world.”
By contrast, Paul applauded Trump’s move. “I am happy to see a President who can declare victory and bring our troops out of a war,” Paul wrote on Trump’s favorite social media platform. “It’s been a long time since that has happened.”
Trump unloaded on Graham on Twitter. “So hard to believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$.,” the president tweeted. “Why are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying & killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran & other locals? Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!”
This could give Paul the upper hand as the two try to sway Trump on Afghanistan and other looming foreign policy decisions. “When it comes to foreign policy and comparing Rand Paul to Lindsey Graham, there is no competition,” said Cliff Maloney, the president of the Paul-friendly organization Young Americans for Liberty. “Rand’s realist foreign policy versus Graham’s neocon nation-building crusade is one of the most important debates of our time.”
Graham speaks for a large number of Republicans who find Trump’s recent moves alarming. “What I am trying to convince President Trump of is our presence [in Afghanistan] is homeland security in another fashion,” the South Carolinian told CNN. “I understand why you would build a wall along the southern border with other technology to prevent drugs and crime from coming into America, to stem the tide of illegal immigration. I don’t know why you would pull out of places like Afghanistan until the conditions warrant because you can’t build a wall between us and radical Islam. And this is the center of gravity — Afghanistan. This is where it all started.”
Trump has chafed under the influence of advisers he sees as slow-walking him on a number of issues ranging from Syria to the border wall. First, he began to push them out, replacing his secretary of state, national security adviser, attorney general, White House chief of staff, and soon his defense secretary. Now, he is overruling them on policy.
Paul has tried to keep the Trump administration moving in a less interventionist direction where possible. One recent report credited him with persuading Trump to stop his hard line against Iran. Others have noted his involvement in the Syria decision. Paul supporters note that some his positions should resonate with Trump. “Rand knows how to support our brave men and women in uniform: bring them home,” Maloney said.
The other senator from Kentucky is offering some resistance, however. “I believe it’s essential that the United States maintain and strengthen the post-World War II alliances that have been carefully built by leaders in both parties. We must also maintain a clear-eyed understanding of our friends and foes and recognize that nations like Russia are among the latter,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement responding to Mattis’ impending departure. “So, I was sorry to learn that Secretary Mattis, who shares those clear principles, will soon depart the administration. But I am particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on these and other key aspects of America’s global leadership.”
Florida senator and foreign policy hawk Marco Rubio warned on Fox News: “ISIS is going to reemerge as a — maybe not the way they were before — powerful insurgency that can then carry out huge propaganda gains around the world, raise money, plot and/or inspire attacks abroad.”
Trump’s actions have ripped open old wounds from the Republican presidential primaries. Rivals such as Graham and Rubio expressed concern that Trump would represent a departure from recent Republican foreign policy positions while GOP leaders such as McConnell were cool to the businessman’s candidacy. Trump hammered the Iraq War and questioned whether George W. Bush really kept the country safe during his eight years in the White House.
That didn’t prevent Trump from winning 2016 primaries in military-heavy states like Graham’s South Carolina anyway. As president, he arrived at a detente of sorts with many of his intraparty foes. He brought in advisers like John Bolton and Nikki Haley, whose foreign policy views were seen as more conventional, and he ordered military strikes in Syria to retaliate against Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
From Saudi Arabia to Syria, Trump has revealed that Republican unity on his foreign policy is more fragile. The rebellion broke out into the open over Syria and Mattis. But it arguably started with the odd couple of Graham and Paul deciding that on some issues, it was better to oppose the president than to try to convince him.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
