Trump administration officials say they are not seeking war with Iran but haven’t ruled out using an old war powers act to hit the regime in the future.
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grilled State Department officials Wednesday on the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force, focusing heavily on Iran. The two laws have been used to fight terrorism and engage in operations in Iraq, respectively, for nearly 20 years. As tensions with Iran continue to rise, some lawmakers are concerned the 2001 AUMF could be used to circumvent Congress should the administration decide to strike Iran.
“[T]he administration has not, to date, interpreted either the 2001 or 2002 AUMF as authorizing military force against Iran, except as may be necessary to defend U.S. or partner forces as they pursue missions authorized under either AUMF,” Marik String, the State Department’s acting legal adviser, told the committee.
The “to date” caveat caught the attention of several Democrats who were concerned the administration may change its interpretation in the future.
Ranking member and New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez asked Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale if the administration would “commit to seeking congressional authority for any military action other than a defensive one.”
“I can certainly assure you, senator, that we will act in accordance with the law and seek consultations with the Congress,” Hale replied.
“That’s not a commitment to seek an AUMF,” Menendez noted.
The Constitution splits war powers between the executive and legislative branches. Congress is responsible for declaring war while the president has the role of commander in chief. Legal scholars generally agree this position gives the president the authority to repel imminent threats. The War Powers Act of 1973 added a requirement for the president to notify Congress of any military action within 48 hours and limits deployments to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period. An AUMF or declaration of war is required for longer engagements.
Turning to String, Menendez asked if he could explain the “to date” caveat.
“As an attorney in the executive branch, we can only comment on the facts before us,” String said. “Its a tumultuous region, and it would be difficult to speculate on what facts may arise in the future, and we would be asked by clients in the executive branch as to what might change, if anything.”
Congress passed the 2001 AUMF following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The bill gave the president wide authority to engage in military operations against terrorist organizations and other actors who helped perpetrate the attacks, but both Republican and Democratic administrations have been accused of using it to engage in operations outside the law’s original intent. The Obama administration extended it to cover operations against ISIS.
In June, Democratic California congresswoman Barbara Lee added an amendment to the House version of the defense budget bill that would repeal the 2001 AUMF. Lee was one of the few to vote against the bill in 2001, due to concerns it was too broad. It is highly unlikely the amendment makes it into the final version of the bill sent to Trump, according to Rick Berger, a defense budget fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.
String cautioned senators against repealing the AUMF without passing a replacement first, saying it “would cast doubt on the U.S. government’s continued authority to use force against a terrorist group subject to those authorizations.”
