Follow us on social


House effort to kill a 22-yr-old endless war bill is a bipartisan affair

Rep. Dan Bishop leads amendment to sunset 2001 AUMF and counts Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee, among others, as its co-sponsors.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

UPDATE 7/14: The amendment to repeal the 2001 AUMF did not make if out of the rules committee this week, though House Rules Chairman Tom Cole said that Speaker Kevin McCarthy pledged to take up AUMF repeal legislation later this year.

Lawmakers have in recent years had a renewed appetite to reclaim Congress’s warmaking power. The Senate voted earlier this year to repeal the Iraq War authorizations from 1991 and 2002. The House has passed similar legislation in previous legislative sessions and President Joe Biden had pledged to support a repeal of the 2002 legislation, though those attempts have not yet become law. 

There have also been efforts to end U.S. military participation in specific conflicts, including War Powers Resolutions targeting U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen in 2019 and efforts to withdraw forces from Syria and Somalia

Now, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) is leading a bipartisan group of House members in introducing an amendment to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act that would repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The amendment, one of more than 1,500 that will be considered by the House Rules committee this week, would repeal the 2001 law 180 days after it is enacted. 

The 2001 AUMF, which was passed by a vote of 420-1 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, gave the president broad authorization to wage war “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” In the more than two decades since its passage, it has been used by four presidents, from both parties, to justify counterterrorism operations in at least 19 countries. 

This law is “one of those things that's most inexplicable and abusive in terms of the way power and decision making is supposed to flow on matters of use of the military,” Rep. Bishop told Responsible Statecraft in an interview. “It is inconsistent with the notion that Congress declares war.” 

Rep. Barbara Lee, the lone “nay” vote in 2001, is the lead Democratic co-sponsor for the amendment. She has introduced legislation aimed at repealing the 2001 law every year since 2010. “In just 60 words, the 2001 AUMF gave the President a blank check for war," Rep. Lee told RS in a statement. "In the decades since, it has been used as justification for open-ended military operations abroad. Make no mistake: the 2001 AUMF was wrong back then, and it’s wrong today. Congress must put partisanship aside and restore our constitutional war powers, starting by supporting this bipartisan amendment with Rep. Bishop.”

Other co-sponsors for this amendment include Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.).  

Notably, when the Senate voted to repeal the two Iraq war authorizations, an amendment introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would have repealed the post-9/11 legislation was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 86-9. In advance of that vote, Paul argued that repealing only the Iraq War authorizations would not go far enough. 

“We need to take the additional step of also repealing the Authorization for the war in Afghanistan,” he wrote in Responsible Statecraft. “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.”

Sen. Paul again introduced similar legislation in the Senate last month. “If there exists any desire to reclaim our Constitutional power and send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace, Congress should pass this bill and repeal the 2001 Authorization for war, Paul said in a June statement. After all, the 2001 AUMF never intended to authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever.” 

Rep. Bishop tells RS, “those in favor of forever wars are in both parties. My observation, in the time I’ve been in Congress, is that they tend to dominate.” Nonetheless, Bishop feels that the momentum is shifting towards opposition to these open-ended foreign entanglement, arguing that “the American people are so fed up with being involved in constant warfare.”

The amendment will be considered by the rules committee, which decides which amendments will receive votes on the floor, a process that started on Tuesday.  If it makes it out of the rules committee, the amendment will have to be approved by both the House and the Senate. If past attempts at a repeal are any indication, this amendment may be facing long odds. 

But those who want Congress to reclaim its constitutional responsibility as the sole body responsible for making decisions of war and peace will continue to push for the twenty-year old authorization to be overturned.  “I do think that the number of times this [type of question] surfaces [in Congress] increases the prospect of ultimately dealing with it,” says Bishop.

Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)(Reuters)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin


President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis