Inside the Senate debate over the Houthi strikes
The bipartisan group, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) pressed President Joe Biden for more details on the strategy behind the ongoing campaign. | Jose Luis Magana/AP
WRANGLING OVER WAR POWERS
It has been nearly two weeks since President Joe Biden launched military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen who have threatened maritime traffic in the Red Sea — and a group of senators is raising the pressure on Biden to provide some answers.
The Houthi strikes, which have continued this week, are the latest foreign military intervention to catch the attention of lawmakers who have long been concerned about strengthening Congress’s role in U.S. war powers.
While the initial Jan. 11 strikes sparked scattered objections on Capitol Hill, mainly from progressive Democrats who suggested Biden needed congressional authorization first, the new bipartisan group — which includes Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) — is taking a more considered approach.
In a letter to Biden yesterday, the group pressed Biden for more details on the strategy behind the ongoing campaign, noting the lack of a clear congressional authorization for the use of force against the Houthis and senators’ longstanding advocacy “for deliberate congressional processes in and authorizations for decisions that put service members into harm’s way overseas.”
“The legal authority is all a subset of: What’s the strategy?” Kaine told Inside Congress. “So I think we need to get an answer on the strategy, on the de-escalation strategy, and then I think we’re going to have to grapple with the legal authorization question.”
Biden’s bipartisan defense: The response to the strikes, which the U.S. has carried out in conjunction with the United Kingdom and other western allies, has scrambled party lines. Key Republicans and Democrats we spoke to stood up for Biden’s decision to protect shipping lanes and said they were not concerned about him sidestepping Congress.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he’s had “spirited discussions” with the administration.
“With me, they’ve been clear about what their strategy is,” he said. “Their job is to protect Americans and American interests, and I am not critical that they’re attempting to do that.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Armed Services and Judiciary committees called the strikes “a legitimate exercise of [Biden’s] constitutional power.”
“It is a defense function that he is undertaking in an emergency situation, without adding troops, to deter and degrade a terrorist state from attacking our ships,” he said.
Policy and political doubts: Other senators are less willing to give Biden — or any president — carte blanche to engage in a sustained bombing campaign that they fear could escalate into a broader conflict.
The precise question of what a president can and cannot do under the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution is complex, to say the least, and depends on the answers to several of the questions that the four senators are asking.
But to many lawmakers, including Senate Foreign Relations Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the plain truth is that Congress has already ceded too much of its power to the executive branch.
“If it’s anticipated this is going to be a long-range continuing operation … and that we’re going to be using our military in an aggressive way, then they should be on sounder [legal] footing,” Cardin said, suggesting a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force — aka an AUMF — could be needed
Young said he was “inclined” at this point to work with colleagues on a new AUMF tailored to the situation but hasn’t made a final determination pending a response to the letter: “If they can shed light on their legal reasoning, then that will help me determine the best path going forward.”
Seeking an AUMF, of course, is no small thing. Just Foreign Policy Executive Director Erik Sperling, a former House staffer who worked on Yemen policy and advocates for diplomatic solutions to conflicts in the Middle East, said Biden’s decision not to seek congressional approval is understandable, if constitutionally questionable.
“The executive branch prefers unauthorized wars because approval from Congress can be a major hassle, particularly when word reaches Americans outside of the Beltway that Congress is thinking about voting for a new Mideast war,” Sperling said.
— Daniella Diaz and Joe Gould, with assist from Connor O’Brien