A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced a bill Thursday that would repeal the congressional authorizations for the use of force from the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars.
The proposal will almost certainly make it through the House, where a similar measure passed each of the last two years. The question lies with the Senate, which has been wary to sign off on House repeal efforts.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled Thursday that he is determined to end that trend, an urgency likely driven in part by the fact that next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the second Iraq war. “I will work with Sens. [Tim] Kaine (D-Va.) and [Todd] Young (R-Ind.) to move this bipartisan legislation to the Senate floor soon, so that the Senate can pass it quickly,” he said.
President Joe Biden has also promised to support a repeal of the 2002 authorization, which provided a legal basis for the second Iraq war, if passed. Sponsors of the bill include Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and Tom Cole (R-Okla.), as well as Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
“Endless war weakens our national security, robs this and future generations through skyrocketing debt, and creates more enemies to threaten us,” Paul said in a statement. “It’s long past time that we respect the balance of power and reassert Congress’ voice by forcing legislators to specifically approve or disapprove of the direction of our foreign policy.”
A successful repeal would be a major victory for anti-war advocates, who have fought for years to rein in what they view as presidential abuses of war powers. Notably, President Donald Trump cited the second Iraq war authorization as a legal justification for the 2020 strike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, a move that threatened to start a major war between the United States and Iran.
“When you take away Congress’ ability to do their job based on what the Constitution requires, you’re really fundamentally acting in an undemocratic fashion,” Rep. Lee told RS last year. “We need to debate and provide an authorization to the President if we think that that is necessary.”
Notably, the bill does not address the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which provides the president with broad authority to target states or groups involved in the 9/11 attacks. This authorization has been used to justify continued interventions in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and several other countries where al-Qaida or ISIS militants are based.
Lee, who cast the only vote against the 2001 AUMF, has introduced a bill to repeal it every year since 2010 and is expected to do the same this year. Given the proposal’s potential impact on U.S. military operations abroad — and its symbolic power as the authority underlying much of the war on terror — it has a significantly lower chance of passing.
But there is some hope for war powers advocates: The National Security Council suggested Wednesday in a statement to the Washington Post that Biden would support an effort to “ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.”
