Follow us on social

google cta
Time to rip up the president's blank check for war

Time to rip up the president's blank check for war

The 2002 military authorization — up for a vote today — is largely symbolic. The 2001 AUMF is what's being used to justify all post-9/11 interventions.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting recently, we debated repealing the 2002 Authorization for the Iraq War. The Iraq War ended long ago. You’d think it would be unanimously agreed to end a war that’s already over.    

But, if we stop with just repealing the Iraq War authorization, I fear nothing will change.

We need to take the additional step of also repealing the Authorization for the war in Afghanistan. The 2001 authorization to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice was warranted, but like the Iraq War, the Afghan War has long ago ended — yet its authorization remains on the books.

Deciding when and where to go to war is Congress’s job. The president has authority to execute the war, but not to initiate it. James Madison wrote that the executive branch was the most prone to go to war and, therefore, the Constitution vested that power in the legislature.

There is wisdom in Madison’s words. Presidents of both parties abused the 9/11 authorization to take us to war in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger, among others.

Repealing the Iraq War authorization is a step in the right direction. But realize that the Biden administration will not oppose its repeal because the United States does not independently rely on it for ongoing military activities. In other words, they don’t need it. Repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization only, and nothing changes. The decision of where and when to go to war will still be dependent solely upon the whims of the executive.

All recent presidents erroneously claim limitless war powers under Article II of the Constitution and use the 9/11 2001 authorization to justify wars in at least 19 countries.

But the 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

It authorizes force against those entities narrowly defined by their relationship to the 9/11 attacks. Authorization was not given for a global war on terror or against radical Islamists.

Over the years, the definition of what groups are covered by this AUMF grew. Over time, the 9/11 2001 AUMF was said, without congressional authorization, to cover “associated forces,” meaning the president could claim the authority to go to war against any group no matter how tenuous the relationship to its involvement in 9/11.

No one in Congress in 2001 believed they were voting for a decades’ long war fought in at least 19 countries.

Our job is not just to put a congressional imprimatur on war. The important job of Congress is to determine where and when we send our sons and daughters to fight.

Recently, I asked my fellow committee members: would anyone here vote to authorize the status quo? Would you vote to authorize military operations nearly two dozen countries? Don’t you think Congress should have a debate over the question where and when we go to war?

Some argue repealing the 2001 9/11 AUMF would put us at risk.

Then let’s have that debate. The amendment I offered makes no mention of whether we should continue these operations. My amendment sunsets the 2001 9/11 AUMF after six months. We can use that time to debate exactly where and how to authorize force.

War is sometimes necessary, but going to war should not be the decision of one person. Ending congressional authorization for the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War returns the war power to the American people and their representatives.


A U.S. Soldier, in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, Jan. 17, 2021. The Soldiers are in Syria to support the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) mission. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)|A U.S. Soldier, in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, Jan. 17, 2021. The Soldiers are in Syria to support the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) mission. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
Top photo credit: Federal police tackle and detain a person as demonstrators protest outside the Whipple federal building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 16, 2026. (Photo by Steven Garcia/NurPhoto)

Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota

Military Industrial Complex

In the past few weeks, thousands of federal law enforcement officials have descended on Minneapolis. Videos show immigration officers jumping out of unmarked vans, tackling and pepper-spraying protesters, and breaking windows in order to drag people from their cars.

Prominent figures in the Trump administration have defended this approach despite fierce local backlash. When federal agents killed a protester named Alex Pretti on Saturday, for example, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem quickly accused him of “domestic terrorism.”

keep readingShow less
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.