In a move that has ignited a political firestorm, U.S. President Joe Biden’s authorization of overnight strikes on Yemen has sparked debate over the constitutional boundaries of executive power. Critics in the U.S. Congress argue that Biden’s actions violated the Constitution, emphasizing the need for congressional authorization for acts of war.
However, legal experts point to provisions in U.S. law that grant the White House the authority to initiate limited foreign military actions. Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, asserts that there is not a robust case preventing Biden from such actions within the legal framework.
So, what transpired during the Yemen airstrikes? U.S. and British military assets executed numerous airstrikes in retaliation against Houthi forces, who had been targeting Red Sea shipping. The Houthi forces justified their attacks as a response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
Despite informing Congress about the impending strikes, the Biden administration did not seek formal approval. This has led to scrutiny, particularly from progressive Democrats who argue that according to Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war rests with Congress.
Constitutional tensions arise as Article 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, empowering the president to use military force without congressional approval for defensive purposes. Advocates for Biden’s decision argue that responding to attacks on U.S. bases and commercial ships falls under the umbrella of defensive measures.
Adding another layer to the debate is the War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 after the Vietnam War, which places limits on presidential power in the use of military force. This resolution mandates that military actions without a formal declaration of war or specific legal authority be terminated within 60 days. The president is also required to provide Congress with a report detailing the circumstances, authority, and estimated scope of hostilities within 48 hours of an attack.
Looking ahead, the response to Biden’s actions hinges on the evolving situation on the ground. Legal and security policy experts suggest that if the conflict with the Houthis does not escalate and the administration continues to keep Congress informed, the likelihood of significant repercussions diminishes.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, and senior adviser to the Crisis Group’s U.S. program, emphasizes that the extent of congressional pushback remains uncertain. He anticipates that the response may evolve over time, especially if there are additional Houthi attacks in the Red Sea or further strikes on Yemen.
Experts also highlight the potential for Congress to assert its authority by passing legislation to redefine the president’s war powers, given the existing ambiguities in the law.
Examining historical precedents, Congress passed a resolution in 2020 to restrict then-President Donald Trump’s war powers after he ordered a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani. However, Trump vetoed the resolution, and it lacked sufficient support for an override.
In 2011, then-President Barack Obama authorized air strikes on Libya without congressional approval, later acknowledging it as a significant mistake. The strikes contributed to the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi but left Libya in a state of deep instability.
As the constitutional debate unfolds, the trajectory of congressional response and potential legislative actions will shape the long-term implications of Biden’s decision to greenlight the Yemen airstrikes.
