Republican-led committee approves bill restricting Donald Trump's ability to wage war
The amendment would revoke the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A House committee has earned a rare bipartisan round of applause for beginning to roll back the US president's ability to wage war.
The House Appropriations Committee recently approved an amendment to revoke the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which allows the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. The law, passed shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, has been used to approve conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
The new amendment, introduced by Democratic Representative Barbara Lee, would sunset these presidential powers eight weeks after Congress passes the 2018 defence spending budget. The appropriations committee has sent the budget to the House floor for a vote.
A visibly surprised Ms Lee welcomed the addition of the amendment on Thursday, condemning the AUMF as “a blank check to wage war anywhere, at any time, and for any length”.
The AUMF has been used to justify military action more than 37 times in 14 countries since 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“This issue is more urgent given the erratic behaviour and inexperience of our current Commander-in-Chief,” Ms Lee said. “No president should have a blank check for endless war, least of all President Donald Trump.”
Mr Trump recently handed control of troop levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria over to the Pentagon.
Several Republicans supported Ms Lee’s amendment, including Representatives Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL, and Chris Stewart, a former Air Force pilot.
Republican Representative Tom Cole, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labour, Health and Human Services, also backed Ms Lee’s amendment.
"We are at war against an enemy that did not exist in a place that we did not expect to fight," Mr Cole said. "How an AUMF can be stretched 16 years, certainly before I was in Congress, is beyond me."
If the amendment passes both the House and Senate, Congress would have a short 240 days to pass a new AUMF. The act has been a sticking point in Congress for years, meaning there’s no guarantee a new authorization would make it through.
The lone “nay” vote on the amendment, House Appropriations defence subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Granger, said the addition to the spending bill is a “deal breaker”.
The amendment, Ms Granger argued, would “tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to al-Qaeda and ... affiliated terrorism.”
“It cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations,” she argued.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments