SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war powers
Omar Brings War Powers Resolution After Trump Bombed Boat in Caribbean With 'No Legal Justification'
"It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress," the Minnesota congresswoman said of Trump's strike on a boat bound from Venezuela, which killed 11 people last week.
Sep 12, 2025
US Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Thursday, seeking to restrain President Donald Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean after he ordered a drone strike on a ship from Venezuela last week, killing 11 people.
The Trump administration has claimed, with little evidence, that the boat was a drug trafficking vessel that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But that narrative has come increasingly into doubt in recent days.
In a statement on the resolution provided to The Intercept, Omar (D-Minn.) said:
There was no legal justification for the Trump administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean... It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the "sole authority to declare war," but presidents have often carried out military actions without congressional approval, citing their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, particularly since the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001.
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, requiring the president to report military actions to Congress within 48 hours and requiring Congress to authorize the deployment of troops after 60 days.
Omar unveiled the resolution alongside several of her fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and caucus whip Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.).
"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," Casar said. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."
In the days following Trump's strike on the ship, the administration's narrative that it contained members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang bound for the United States has been called into question by news reports and by those briefed by the Department of Defense, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the "Department of War."
After his staff was briefed on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that the Pentagon has "offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel."
While Trump has stated that the boat was en route to the US, the briefers themselves acknowledged that they could not determine its destination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted the president, saying "these particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing."
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that the boat "had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started," which further contradicts the claim of imminent harm to the US.
“There is no evidence—none—that this strike was conducted in self-defense," Reed said. "That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”
Even if the people aboard the boat were carrying drugs, as the administration claims, there is no legal precedent for the crime of drug trafficking justifying such an extraordinary use of military retaliation.
The White House has attempted to argue that the president has the legal authority to summarily kill suspected drug smugglers using an unprecedented legal rationale, which labels cartel members as tantamount to enemy combatants, who are allowed to be killed in war, because the product they carry causes thousands of deaths per year in the US. Legal analysts have described this as a flimsy pretext for extrajudicial murder.
Scott R. Anderson, a senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School and a former legal adviser at the US State Department, wrote for the Lawfare blog:
There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that.
Marty Lederman, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, wrote for Just Security:
Regardless of which laws might have been broken, what’s more alarming, and of greater long-term concern, is that U.S. military personnel crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law."
The resolution introduced by Omar is the first seeking to restrain Trump's ability to launch military strikes against Venezuela. But it's not the first seeking to rein in his wide-ranging use of unilateral warmaking authority.
In June, following his launch of airstrikes against Iran, war powers resolutions introduced in the House and Senate to limit Trump's actions in the Middle East narrowly failed despite receiving some Republican support.
Though specific attempts to rein in Trump's power have failed, the House did pass a bipartisan resolution earlier this week to repeal the AUMFs issued by Congress in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and which presidents have used for over two decades to justify a wide range of military actions across the Middle East without congressional oversight.
If passed, Omar's measure would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Venezuela or launching more strikes on transnational criminal organizations that he has designated as terrorist groups since February, including Tren de Aragua.
García, the Progressive Caucus whip, said the resolution was an effort to begin restoring Congress' authority to check a president operating with impunity.
"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump’s reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he’s lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions,” said García. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and— consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war—reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
President Trump’s War on Iran Was Illegal and Unconstitutional—Congress Must Act Like It
Without a change, we will only continue to see presidents launch more and larger wars whenever and wherever they want and for whatever reason they choose.
Jun 26, 2025
As a fragile cease-fire takes hold between Israel, Iran, and the United States, many questions remain.
With Iran’s nuclear program unquestionably damaged but likely not fully destroyed, will the Iranian government now race toward a bomb? Having repeatedly broken recent cease-fires in Lebanon and Gaza, will Prime Minister Netanyahu honor this one? And after having twice taken direct military action against Iran, will President Donald Trump pursue the peace he claims to seek or once again choose war?
Meanwhile, Congress is currently debating whether and how to rein in Trump's war making power, with votes possible by the end of this week. There are two competing House bills, one bipartisan War Powers Resolution (WPR) sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Tom Massie (R-Ky.), and another by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Jim Himes (D-Conn.). Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a Senate version, and that one is likely to get a vote by Friday.
If one person alone decides when the nation goes to war, wars will inevitably be about one person’s grievances, politics, and personal interests.
Time will tell whether these measures will pass or have any effect on current events, but on one point, there is absolute certainty. President Trump’s war on Iran was illegal and unconstitutional.
When it comes to who has the legal authority to declare war, the Constitution is unequivocal. The power to declare war rests solely with Congress. Once authorized, the president is the commander-in-chief, but the title does not confer on him the authority to decide where, when, or against whom the country goes to war, simply to oversee the prosecution of wars once they have been authorized.
For the Constitution’s framers, these weren’t hypothetical arguments, and we don’t have to guess at their reasoning or intention. They lived in an age when wars were fought at the whims of monarchs, sometimes for lofty imperial goals but sometimes for petty personal grievances. Indeed their own revolution had been based, in part, over frustration with the massive taxation required to pay down King George’s war debts. Instead, they sought to create a system in which the people who would pay the war’s costs in blood and treasure would decide whether or not their nation goes to war.
To accomplish this, they put this awesome power in the branch of government most accountable to the people, Congress. They did so with the hope and intention that this would make going to war difficult. If one person alone decides when the nation goes to war, wars will inevitably be about one person’s grievances, politics, and personal interests. By requiring Congress to publicly come together and navigate their myriad differences, the hope was that consensus would be difficult to obtain and wars would thus only be launched when there was a clear, overwhelming, and genuine national interest in doing so.
And of course, if members of Congress failed to exercise their authority responsibly, they’d regularly face elections where they could be replaced.
It was and remains an inspiring decision to impose a massive check on the most awesome power of the state. Unfortunately, as Donald Trump’s decision to wage war on Iran reminds us, this system of war powers is deeply broken and prone to abuse.
For starters, Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States that required military action in self-defense. To the extent any such claims are being made, they are based on a hypothetical future threat that must be prevented, namely an Iranian nuclear weapon. Such claims, of course, are a disturbing echo of the Iraq War, and even then they amount to arguments for preventative wars, not genuine preemption of an imminent threat. While this may seem like a small distinction, it is in fact a massive one.
In a letter to Congress justifying his war-making, President Trump makes no claim that the Iranian government was preparing an attack against the United States that he needed to preempt. Instead, he argues he was simply acting to “protect United States citizens at home and abroad” as well as stating repeatedly he is acting to “advance vital United States national interests.” Nowhere in this justification or his public remarks does the president make any claim that he is acting to defend against an imminent attack. Rather, he is simply claiming the unilateral right to both decide what is in the national interest and then to use military force in pursuit of that interest. Even if one agrees with his definition of interests and belief that military force will achieve them (something of which this author and others are deeply skeptical), it does not negate the need for constitutionally required authorization before resorting to war.
Similarly, the president’s claim in the letter that he was acting “in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel” is not an invocation of any actual legal authority to wage war. What Trump is attempting here is a sleight of hand in which the president’s right to use military force in self-defense of the United States is, without any legal authority, bestowed upon another country. Sadly, Trump may have learned this trick from Joe Biden who absurdly also made this claim to justify his use of military force in Somalia. To be clear, international law does allow for using military force in collective self-defense, but international law is not a replacement for the Constitution’s requirements of congressional authority to go to war. For the U.S. president to send the U.S. military into war, they ultimately need authority under U.S. law, and U.S. law simply does not provide existing authority for using military force in defense of Israel.
Of course, Trump isn’t the first president to try to unilaterally expand his authority to wage war. After the disastrous U.S. experience in Vietnam in which the mission grew from a small advisory effort in support of the French and then South Vietnamese forces to hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops fighting a deadly and ultimately unsuccessful major war, Congress attempted to get ahead of this growing problem and place limits on presidents in the 1973 War Powers Act. While perhaps no law in history has been more misunderstood or misinterpreted, WPR reaffirmed Congress’ sole constitutional right to declare war and created a framework to force presidents to remove the military from situations in which they may become engaged in wars Congress had not authorized.
The goal was simple: If it seemed like the U.S. might end up in war, the WPR required the president to remove forces to prevent that from happening. It also gave Congress fast-track procedures to consider legislation to force the president to comply. Indeed, in the coming days Congress may consider this with the various versions offered in both the House and Senate. This is exactly what happened in 2020 following Trump’s assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassam Soleimani, when Congress passed a resolution blocking further military action against Iran.
The fate of that resolution, however, also revealed the fundamental flaws in the current system. Trump ultimately vetoed that 2020 WPR legislation, and no doubt will do so again if Congress passes such legislation in the coming days. Thus, without a two-thirds supermajority, the system creates the conditions for presidential impunity when violating the Constitution’s separation of powers. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of what the framers intended. Their goal was that a majority of both houses of Congress would be required to go to war, not that a super majority of Congress would be required to prevent a president from going to war. The current system is thus an absurd perversion of the plain text and obvious intention of the Constitution.
Thankfully, some in Congress are trying to repair this dangerous situation. Bipartisan groups in both the House and Senate have recently introduced legislation to return the balance of power to Congress, and by extension to the American public, preventing the kind of unilateral war-making President Trump has repeatedly engaged in. This legislation likely faces long odds, but such reforms are deeply necessary in the long run. Without a change, we will only continue to see presidents launch more and larger wars whenever and wherever they want and for whatever reason they choose.
While the worst-case scenarios of a spiraling, escalating war may (or may not) have been avoided in this case, there is no guarantee that future presidential war-making will be so limited. Thankfully, the Constitution was drafted to prevent just such disasters. The only question left is if we’ll continue to allow presidents to violate it and act like kings.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular