Veterans for Common Sense Letter_to_Congressional Leadership Calling for Repeal of Legacy AUMFs (Jun. 24, 2025)

Veterans for Common Sense Fact Sheet – Zombie AUMFs: Legacy War Authorizations Linger (PDF, Jun. 24, 2025)

Background:

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (“2001 AUMF”) that gave then-President George W. Bush unprecedentedly broad war making powers far beyond those in the 1991 AUMF still in operation at the time.

Specifically, the 2001 AUMF authorized the President, “to use all necessary and appropriate force 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 order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Also notably, the 2001 AUMF contained no additional requirements for Congressional decision-making, or Executive Branch reporting beyond those already contained in the War Powers Resolution.

Only one member of the House voted against passage of the incredibly broad 2001 AUMF, saying it, “was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.”[1]  She came under harsh criticism at the time, but as she predicted, continued reliance on the overly broad 2001 AUMFs (and to a lesser extent on AUMFs from 1991 and 2002) has confounded the situation.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 2016 there have been dozens of “relevant occurrences of an official record, disclosed publicly, of presidential reference to the 2001 AUMF in connection with initiating or continuing military or related action (including non-lethal military activities such as detentions and military trials).”[2] Notwithstanding the fact that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were perpetrated by members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group based in Afghanistan, successive presidents have directed U.S. military operations in ever-expanding locales. Citing the 2001 AUMF as authorization, military actions in dozens of countries across the globe included against new groups (e.g., ISIS/ISIL) that did not even exist at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Some argued during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the U.S. was not safer because of the overly expansive AUMFs but instead the U.S. was creating new enemies every time the U.S. military bombed a wedding and killed dozens of innocents whose only crime was to be near the intended targets. Others have expressed grave concern that the scope of these AUMFs has been contorted well beyond their original intent, including to conduct military operations beyond the 9/11 attackers like the U.S. military operations in Libya and Syra, and to provide weapons and war material for our allies, such as to Saudi Arabia in its devastating war against insurgents in Yemen – entirely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks that precipitated the 2001 AUMF.  For the last several decades, the U.S. military has been thrust into new wars with little Congressional oversight, no clear definition of victory, and often with no exit strategy. Successive generals have come and gone with their confident plans to “win”.

The forever wars continued under these AUMFs, which remain essentially open-ended for future use by future presidents.

***

References:

[1] Barbara Lee, “Why I opposed the resolution to authorize force,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 23, 2001.

[2] Congressional Research Service memorandum, “Presidential References to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Publicly Available Executive Actions and Reports to Congress,” by Matthew Weed, updated Feb. 16, 2018.

[3] H.J.Res.52 – Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2023 118th Congress (2023-2024): While this is a legislative document rather than a CRS report, CRS often analyzes such proposed legislation. This specific joint resolution proposed repealing the 2001 AUMF and replacing it with a new, more narrowly defined authorization, highlighting ongoing congressional efforts to reform the “legacy” AUMFs. Searching for CRS analysis on this resolution (e.g., “CRS H.J.Res.52”) would likely yield relevant reports.

Select Publications on Legacy AUMFs:

• Stimson, Charles D., Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy, Legal Memorandum No. 256, January 6, 2020, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal & Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.
• Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Repeal or Reform the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs
• Greggo, Demri Scott, Now Is the Time to Repeal the 2001 and 1991 AUMFs, Stars and Stripes, Nov. 21, 2024; Feb. 21, 2025
• Press Release, Rep. Roy, Meeks Re-Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Repeal the 1991, 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
• “Obama’s AUMF Legacy” by Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith (2016): This influential piece details how the Obama administration solidified the 2001 AUMF as the legal basis for an ongoing conflict against Al-Qaeda and associated groups, extending its reach to the Islamic State, and how international law was invoked to support presidential discretion. (Published in American Journal of International Law).
• “The Risk of Delay: The Need for a New Authorization for Use of Military Force” (2017): This article highlights the questionable link between existing AUMFs and the use of military force against groups like ISIS, arguing for a new AUMF that strikes a balance between flexibility and limitation. (Published by NDU Press).
• “Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations” (U.S. Department of State, originally 2016, updated): This government report provides the executive branch’s justification for the continued use of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
• “Reforming the Authorizations for Use of Military Force” (Brookings Institution, 2022): This piece summarizes discussions on AUMF reform, covering calls for repeal (especially of the 2002 AUMF), updating the 2001 AUMF with sunset provisions, and broader war powers reforms.
• Re-Imagining the Post-9/11 Authorizations for Use of Military Force in the Era of Emerging Consensus on Reform, Peter J. Amato, 50 J. Legis. 93, Univ. Notre Dame (2024):  Argues that the post-9/11 AUMFs “must be discarded and replaced with a reimagined AUMF(s)” with robust and enforceable provisions honoring international law obligations, sunset clauses, and other scope-limiting measures.
• “The President’s War Powers“ (Friends Committee On National Legislation, 2024): This publication discusses the continued reliance on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs for military operations against suspected terrorist groups abroad, highlighting concerns about the executive branch’s expanded interpretation and the need for greater congressional control.

Select Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports on Legacy AUMFs:

• LSB11157 – Assessing Recent U.S. Airstrikes in the Middle East Under the War Powers Framework (Updated frequently, most recently August 15, 2024): This Legal Sidebar is highly relevant as it directly addresses the ongoing use of force in the Middle East and the legal authorities cited, including the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. It discusses the executive branch’s broad interpretations and the questions raised by Congress and legal scholars. The multiple versions indicate ongoing updates as events unfold.

• R42738 – Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2023 (Updated June 7, 2023): While broader in scope, this report provides context for the historical use of military force, including instances under AUMFs. It’s useful for understanding the long-term patterns of presidential use of force and congressional authorization.

• R43983 – 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Issues Concerning Its Continued Application (April 14, 2015): This report is a foundational piece from the mid-2010s that thoroughly examines the ongoing reliance on the 2001 AUMF. It highlights how the Obama administration used it for operations against ISIS and the continuing questions about its scope. While slightly older, its analysis of the issues remains highly relevant.

• R43760 – A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals (February 21, 2017): This report, though focused on proposals for a new AUMF against ISIS, necessarily delves into the limitations and perceived shortcomings of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in addressing evolving threats. It discusses arguments for and against new authorizations and how they relate to the “legacy” ones.

• LSB11232 – The Declare War Clause, Part 3: Authorizations for Use of Military Force and Debate over Initiating Military Action (September 30, 2024): This Legal Sidebar likely delves into the constitutional framework of war powers and how AUMFs fit within it, particularly in the context of initiating military action. It would provide insights into the ongoing debate about congressional and presidential authorities.

How to Find the Latest CRS Reports:

• Congress.gov: The official source for legislative information, including many CRS reports. You can search by report number, keyword (e.g., “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” “AUMF,” “War Powers”), or topic.
• EveryCRSReport.com: A valuable unofficial database that compiles and makes many CRS reports publicly available. It’s often easier to navigate for quick searches.
• FAS Project on Government Secrecy (sgp.fas.org/crs/): Provides a categorized list of CRS reports, including a dedicated section on “National Security and Defense Policy” and “Intelligence,” where many AUMF-related reports are housed.