All articles tagged with #aumf
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Trump could restart Iran strikes without new congressional authorization, citing Article II powers, even after the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day limit, while Sen. Murkowski questions the law’s reading as hostilities reportedly cease and a 2027 budget hearing highlights the ongoing conflict’s energy-market impact.
Under the 1973 War Powers Act, the president has 60 days to conduct military action unless Congress authorizes it. With the Iran conflict underway, lawmakers disagree on when the clock started (some say March 2 notification marks it) and how/if it can be paused or extended. As Congress has recessed, Republicans and Democrats clash over whether to authorize ongoing hostilities or end them, with some pushing for a formal authorization for use of military force (AUMF) and others arguing a 30-day extension is possible or that the clock can be paused during a ceasefire. The White House has suggested hostilities may be over, complicating calls for congressional oversight and approval.
Stephen Pomper argues that decades of legal interpretations and political passivity have hollowed the War Powers framework, enabling Trump to launch strikes abroad without substantial congressional or public justification. The War Powers Resolution’s protections have become Swiss cheese; the 2001 AUMF has been stretched to cover groups beyond its original scope. He calls for concrete reforms—strengthen the War Powers Resolution, narrow or repeal the 2001 AUMF with sunset and oversight, shorten the authorization window, and condition funding on authorization—along with rescinding problematic Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Reform will be hard but is necessary to force deliberation, accountability, and a sharper check on presidential war-making.
Legal scholars say Trump’s strikes on Iran raise serious constitutional questions: only Congress can declare or authorize war, yet the White House has offered no public justification. DOJ memos cited by supporters argue executive power suffices, but several experts—including Ilya Somin and Steve Vladeck—call the move unconstitutional or highly dubious and warn that what’s framed as a limited action could escalate into a broader conflict. The administration cites Article II authority and past executive actions, but critics say the scale, duration, and potential for prolonged hostilities demand congressional authorization, leaving the legality of the strikes contested and unsettled.
The article uses Trump’s Iran strikes to illustrate how presidents justify military action without new congressional authorizations, relying on broad commander-in-chief powers and existing authorizations (notably the 2001 AUMF) for time-sensitive operations. It traces historical precedents (Korea, Bay of Pigs, Cambodia, Panama, Libya) and notes that no new AUMF has been passed since 2002, while Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have conducted actions in multiple countries. The piece also discusses the tension between swift executive action and Congress’s slower, deliberative role, highlighting ongoing debate over presidential overreach versus necessary agility in national security.
The Senate is set to pass a bipartisan bill repealing the authorizations for the Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq War in 2002, but not the post-9/11 measure. The White House has said President Joe Biden would sign the legislation if it comes to his desk. While the measure is expected to pass the Democratic-led Senate, its fate in the GOP-led House is less clear. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced on Tuesday that he did not support the AUMF repeals.
Congress is set to debate and vote on a bill repealing the authority given to President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq in 2002. The move is aimed at reasserting more control on the war-making decisions of the executive branch. The repeal bill would apply only to the later resolution aimed specifically at Iraq and a 1991 AUMF concerning Iraq's invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait. The last time Congress repealed a similar resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964, which had allowed then-President Lyndon Johnson to escalate the conflict in Vietnam.
An American contractor was killed and six others were wounded in a drone attack on a coalition military base in Syria, prompting the US to launch retaliatory airstrikes on facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The airstrikes killed eight pro-Iranian fighters. The US maintains a presence in Syria to apply pressure to the remnants of the Islamic State militant group and to try to limit Iran's influence in Syria. The US Congress is currently considering repealing bills that allowed for the use of force against Iraq's government during the Iraq War and the 2001 AUMF that has been stretched to allow the US to target militant groups in Syria, Pakistan, the Philippines, and beyond.
The Senate has voted 68-27 to advance a bill that would repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization and the 1991 Gulf War authorization. The legislation was sponsored by Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who argue formally ending the two Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) would send a message of support to Iraq, now a strategic partner in the Middle East. If the Senate bill passes, the House will have to take it up. Similar bipartisan legislation was introduced in the lower chamber earlier this year.