A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee is attempting to re-establish congressional oversight of the president’s ability to use military force abroad.
The Obama and Trump administrations have both relied on authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) leftover from the Bush administration: one passed days after 9/11 and another Iraq-related measure that Congress passed in 2002. They have used the authorities to justify a range of engagements overseas, including against the Islamic State (ISIS). In the meantime, lawmakers have repeatedly tried to stand up new authorizations but have failed to get enough support.
Some are hoping that a new piece of legislation unveiled Monday will be different.
Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Corker told reporters Monday that his AUMF, introduced along with Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine and four others, will focus on terrorist groups. Corker and Kaine were at odds last week over whether the president had authority to strike Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure without congressional approval, with Corker saying such surgical strikes are permitted and Kaine describing the move as “illegal.”
“This AUMF addresses only the terrorism side,” Corker told reporters Monday. “It’s very specific that it cannot be used against nation-states.”
Their bill authorizes force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria, as well as “designated associated forces:” al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Shabaab, al-Qaeda in Syria, the Haqqani network, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. As for foreign countries where the U.S. is using military force, the authorization lists Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya.
It would repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations after being in place for 120 days.
Within 30 days of the law’s enactment, the president will be required to fill in the blanks on any entities lawmakers might have missed by submitting a report to Congress on unnamed “associated forces” and the basis for their designation. The president will also have to provide a report “detailing all foreign countries in which the United States is using military force” including military objectives and entities targeted.
Lawmakers have disagreed in the past over the details of a new authorization including time constraints, geographic scope, and the groups targeted. But they’ve also been more broadly divided over whether a new authorization would constrain the president, or whether it would represent Congress reasserting its oversight responsibility and war authority.
Corker said Monday that he hoped the authorization would “strike an appropriate balance,” strengthening Congress’s role while granting the administration flexibility.
Under the new legislation, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours if he takes military action against a new associated force or in a new country. This would trigger a two-month review period, during which Congress can try to stymie the military action.
The AUMF does not include a ‘sunset’ clause, which has previously proved to be an issue of contention among lawmakers. Instead, it includes a congressional review process every four years, at which time the president must submit a proposal to Congress about repealing, modifying, or maintaining the AUMF. Congress can then consider relevant legislation, or do nothing, in which case the existing authorities would remain.
Though there is skepticism about whether Republican leaders will take up a new authorization—which some have already said could hamstring executive authority—Corker said Monday that his priority is getting the legislation to pass the committee level.
“I don’t really worry about much beyond having a successful vote in the committee, which has been difficult for years,” he said.
Virginia senator Tim Kaine, a longtime supporter of a renewed AUMF, said Monday that a new authorization would represent Congress doing its job and “weighing in on where, when, and with who we are at war.”
“For too long, Congress has given presidents a blank check to wage war,” he said. “We’ve let the 9/11 and Iraq War authorizations get stretched to justify wars against multiple terrorist groups in over a dozen countries, from Niger to the Philippines.”
