March, 01 2018, 07:45am EDT
Sanders, Lee, Murphy Introduce War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized U.S. Military Involvement in Yemen
WASHINGTON
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced Wednesday a bipartisan joint resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. The bill will force the first-ever vote in the Senate to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from an unauthorized war.
As a result of the Saudi-led war, a child under the age of five in Yemen dies of preventable causes every 10 minutes. More than 10,000 civilians have died and more than 40,000 have been wounded in this war. Fifteen million people can't access clean water and sanitation. An estimated 17 million people - 60 percent of the total population - do not have reliable access to food and are at risk of starvation.
In 2015, the Obama administration, without consulting Congress, quickly deployed U.S. military forces to provide "logistical and intelligence support" to the Saudi coalition. U.S. military support for this intervention continues to this day. U.S. forces are coordinating, refueling, and providing targeting guidance and intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition, as confirmed recently by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have power to... declare war." However, U.S. participation in Saudi and Emirati hostilities against Yemen's Houthis has never been explicitly authorized by Congress as required by law.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the assignment of a member of the United States Armed Forces to "command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany" another country's military during a war constitutes the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into a conflict. This definition indisputably applies to U.S. military activities in Yemen in support of the Saudi-led coalition.
In November, the House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 366-30, a resolution stating that "Congress has not enacted specific legislation authorizing the use of military force against parties participating in the Yemeni civil war that are not otherwise subject to" the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the 2003 AUMF in Iraq.
The Sanders-Lee-Murphy joint resolution is guaranteed a vote in the Senate in accordance with the procedures outlined in the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. It will be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee and if it hasn't been reported within 10 calendar days, it is subject to a motion to discharge. If reported or discharged from committee, the motion to proceed to the measure is privileged. The joint resolution is debatable for 10 hours on the Senate floor.
"We believe that, as Congress has not declared war or authorized military force in this conflict, the United States involvement in Yemen is unconstitutional and unauthorized, and U.S. military support of the Saudi coalition must end," Sanders said. "That is why today we are introducing a joint resolution pursuant to the 1973 War Powers Resolution calling for an end to U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen."
"With this resolution, Congress can re-assert power over foreign policy decision-making," Lee said. "It can authorize - or decline to authorize - military engagement and define U.S. national interests."
"Thousands and thousands of innocent civilians inside Yemen today are dying, and the United States is complicit," Murphy said. "This horror is caused in part by our decision to facilitate a bombing campaign that is murdering children, and to endorse a Saudi strategy inside Yemen that is deliberately using disease and starvation and the withdrawal of humanitarian support as a tactic. There is no legal authorization for the United States to be part of a war inside Yemen, and Congress cannot continue to be silent."
A similar resolution, introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.), has 50 cosponsors in the House.
To view the resolution, click here.
LATEST NEWS
UN Human Rights Chief Says Trump Must Halt 'Extrajudicial Killing' in International Waters
"None of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law," said Volker Türk.
Oct 31, 2025
The United Nations' top human rights official said Friday that US President Donald Trump's deadly strikes on boats in international waters in recent weeks amount to "extrajudicial killing" that must stop immediately, remarks that came as the White House appeared poised to expand the unlawful military campaign to targets inside Venezuela.
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said of the administration's boat strikes that "these attacks—and their mounting human cost—are unacceptable."
"The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them," said Türk, noting that the administration has not substantiated its claim that those killed by the strikes in waters off Central and South America were smuggling drugs.
The Trump administration has also kept secret a US Justice Department memo purportedly outlining an internal legal justification for the deadly strikes.
Türk noted that "countering the serious issue of illicit trafficking of drugs across international borders is—as has long been agreed among states—a law-enforcement matter, governed by the careful limits on lethal force set out in international human rights law."
"Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life," said the UN human rights chief. "Based on the very sparse information provided publicly by the US authorities, none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law."
The Trump administration's strikes have killed more than 60 people thus far. At least one of the targeted vessels appeared to have turned around before the US military bombed it, killing 11 people.
Türk's statement came as the Miami Herald reported that the Trump administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
Trump has said publicly that land strikes inside Venezuela would be the next phase of the military assault, which he has described as a "war" on drug cartels. The president has not yet received—or even sought—congressional authorization for any of the military actions taken in the Caribbean and Pacific.
In a statement last week, a group of UN experts denounced the Trump administration's strikes and belligerent posturing toward Venezuela as "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated,” the experts said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Has ‘Made the Decision to Attack Military Installations Inside Venezuela’: Report
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," said on critic of potential strikes in Venezuela.
Oct 31, 2025
Two reports claim that the Trump administration is poised to launch strikes against military targets inside Venezuela.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday night that the administration is preparing to attack a variety of targets inside Venezuela, including "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States, and the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the primary cause of drug overdoses in the US.
While the WSJ report said that the administration had not yet decided to carry out the operations against Venezuela, the Miami Herald reported on Friday morning that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
A source who spoke with the Miami Herald didn't explicitly say that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro would be the target of these actions, but they nonetheless hinted that the goal was to weaken his grip on power.
"Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming."
While the Trump administration has accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, some experts have expressed extreme skepticism of this claim.
Phil Gunson, analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, said in an interview with Agence Presse-France earlier this year that he doubts that so-called "Cartel de los Soles" even exists, and noted that "direct, incontrovertible evidence has never been presented" to show otherwise.
Earlier this year, the administration attempted to tie Maduro to another gang, Tren de Aragua, despite US intelligence agencies rejecting the notion that the street gang had government connections.
Launching strikes on Venezuelan soil would mark a major escalation in the administration's military campaign targeting purported drug traffickers, which so far has consisted of drone strikes against boats in international waters that many legal experts have described as a campaign of extrajudicial murder.
Dozens of political leaders throughout Latin America earlier this month condemned the administration's attacks on the purported drug boats, and they warned that they could just be the start of a regime change war reminiscent of the coups carried out by the US government in the last century that installed military dictatorships throughout the region.
"We have lived this nightmare before,” they emphasized in a joint letter. “US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself.”
Medea Benjamin, cofounder of anti-war group CodePink, accused the Trump administration of using a fight against alleged drug trafficking as a false pretext to seize Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," she wrote in a post on X. "Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, that’s why they’re escalating toward war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Failed to Scrap Filibuster Under Biden. Now Trump Wants 'Nuclear Option' to End Shutdown
"I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so," wrote progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan, who repeatedly urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster during Joe Biden's presidency.
Oct 31, 2025
US President Donald Trump late Thursday urged Senate Republicans to scrap the legislative filibuster to end the prolonged government shutdown without Democratic support—the kind of scenario progressives warned about when imploring Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote threshold during former President Joe Biden's term.
In an all-caps post to Truth Social, Trump wrote that "THE CHOICE IS CLEAR—INITIATE THE 'NUCLEAR OPTION,' GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Trump noted Democrats' failure to terminate the filibuster when they controlled Congress under Biden, pointing specifically to the central role that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—both of whom have since left office and the Democratic Party—played in obstructing filibuster reform.
"Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them," Trump wrote. "Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats."
With the filibuster intact, 60 votes are required to pass most legislation in the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats.
Progressives warned repeatedly during Biden's presidency that Republicans wouldn't hesitate to scrap the filibuster in the future should the 60-vote threshold become a severe hindrance to their agenda. Abolishing the legislative filibuster to end the shutdown would clear the way for other Republican policy proposals to get through the Senate with simple-majority support.
"I spent the entire Biden presidency warning idiotic establishment Senate Dems and Biden who opposed getting rid of the filibuster that Trump and the GOP would come back to power and do it themselves," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote Thursday in response to the president's demands. "I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so."
Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff for Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and a vocal advocate of ending the filibuster, noted that "it's pretty easy" to initiate the "nuclear option" on the filibuster "because despite everything, the Senate is a majority rule institution, per the Founders' design."
"The rule that overrides all other rules is that a majority of senators can vote at any time to change the rules—including getting rid of the filibuster, which the Founders abhorred anyway," Jentleson wrote late Thursday. "They could do it tomorrow! No preparation needed."
Trump's demand comes as millions of people across the US are set to lose federal nutrition assistance due to the shutdown and the administration's illegal refusal to tap emergency funds to pay out the benefits.
Millions of Americans are also facing the prospect of skyrocketing health insurance premiums as Trump and congressional Republicans decline to support extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said earlier this month that he would oppose scrapping the filibuster to end the shutdown, but he could change his position amid Trump's pressure campaign.
One progressive, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has called for a filibuster carveout that would allow senators to keep the government open with a simple-majority vote.
"I've been consistent on this," Khanna said in an interview in early October. "I said this when Biden was president, and I'm now saying it when Trump's president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular