Should the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq Be Repealed? (H.R. 256)

What is H.R. 256?

(Updated November 12, 2021)

This bill would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which has been used to authorize military force against the Iraqi that was led by Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, ISIS, militias, and Iranian forces attacking U.S. personnel in Iraq. It wouldn’t replace the repealed AUMF, effectively prohibiting the U.S. military from carrying out counterterrorism operations in Iraq.

Argument in favor

It’s long past time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional war powers by repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. Allowing the AUMF to remain in effect would be dangerous and irresponsible, as it allows U.S. military operations in the Middle East to continue indefinitely.

Argument opposed

Repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq without a replacement would be a grave mistake. Prohibiting the use of American military force in Iraq would give free rein to ISIS and Iran-backed proxies while creating a vacuum that could destabilize Iraq and the broader Middle East.

Impact

The U.S. military; Iraq; and Congress.

Cost of H.R. 256

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced this bill to repeal the 2002 AUMF and offered the following statement about the bill:

“This week, we will make a monumental step forward in our fight to end forever wars. For 20 years, I’ve been working to end forever wars and put matters of war and peace back in the hands of Congress, as constitutionally intended. We are finally on the cusp of achieving that goal. Once we pass a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, we must keep up our fight to repeal the 2001 AUMF so that no future president has the unilateral power to plunge us into endless wars.”

The Biden administration released a statement of administration policy expressing support for the bill which read in part:

“The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations. Furthermore, the President is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R-TX) expressed opposition to this bill and offered a dissent in its committee report, which read in part:

“I understand the desire to repeal the aging 2002 Iraq AUMF as well as the 2001 post-9/11 AUMF. But that must be done as part of enacting a comprehensive replacement to provide clear, updated authorities against the terrorists who still plot to kill Americans at home and abroad. As I know from my years as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and my tenure on this Committee: That threat is not gone; it has evolved...

There are terrorist groups active today inside Iraq who threaten our diplomats, our soldiers, and our partners, who can’t be targeted under the 2001 AUMF because they are not associated forces of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS. A rushed, stand-alone repeal of our 2002 Iraq force authority, which could be used against such threats, sends a message of U.S. disengagement that could destabilize Iraq, embolden Iran, and strengthen al Qaeda and ISIS… In the AUMF context, this danger would be eliminated by taking up repeal and replacement together. Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the Administration to work together on actual text to replace the aging 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, to provide the authorities needed to keep the American people and our deployed troops safe from terrorists.”

This legislation was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on a mostly party-line vote of 28-19, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting in favor. It has the support of 134 cosponsors in the House, including 125 Democrats and nine Republicans. 

In 2020, the House adopted a 2002 AUMF repeal amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) to an appropriations bill that included nearly identical legislative text to this bill. It was agreed to on a mostly party-line vote of 228-175. Four Republicans — Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN), and Thomas Massie (R-KY) — plus Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (L-MI) voted in favor; while three Democrats — Reps. Conor Lamb (D-PA), Ben McAdams (D-UT), and Kurt Schrader (D-OR) — were opposed. All of those lawmakers except for Amash and McAdams are still in the House as of June 2021.

This bill is scheduled to receive a vote on the House floor on June 17, 2021, which will be the first time the chamber has voted on standalone legislation to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF.

Of Note: In addition to the war powers debate surrounding the 2002 Iraq AUMF, a similar debate has played out regarding the 2001 AUMF against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and related terror groups that was enacted in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Lawmakers have offered various proposals, ranging from an outright repeal of either or both AUMFs, to a repeal and replacement with a new AUMF for counterterrorism operations, but as of June 16, 2021, no such legislation has been enacted. 

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) Press Release

• House Foreign Affairs Committee Report

• White House Statement of Administration Policy (In Favor)

• Bill Text

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Curt Cashour via Flickr / Creative Commons)