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
gregory meeks
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
Trump State Dept Announces Withdrawal From UNESCO Over Palestine Inclusion
Like: Palestinian officials responded by urging the U.S. not to "bind its own international standing to the crimes and violations committed by Israel."
Jul 22, 2025
The Trump administration's unrelenting backing of Israel was on display Tuesday as the U.S. State Department withdrew support for the United Nations agency tasked with promoting education and cultural understanding—but the organization's leader pledged that it would continue its work while welcoming "all the nations of the world."
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited the decision by the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to accept the state of Palestine as a member state as part of the reason for the Trump administration's withdrawal.
The inclusion of Palestine is "contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization," Bruce claimed without citing examples.
Audrey Azoulay, director-general of the agency, said the U.S. withdrawal—which President Donald Trump also imposed during his first term, and which will eliminate about 8% of UNESCO's international funding—was "regrettable," but that the organization would continue operating without a reduction in staff, having prepared for the president's exit.
"In spite of President Donald Trump's first withdrawal in 2017, UNESCO stepped up its efforts to take action wherever its mission could contribute to peace and demonstrated the pivotal nature of its mandate," said Azoulay, noting that UNESCO adopted a "global standard-setting instrument on the ethics of artificial intelligence," developed major programs for education in conflict settings, took action to defend biodiversity, and oversaw the reconstruction of Mosul, Iraq—all without the participation of the United States.
Azoulay added that the reasons for the U.S. withdrawal, which will go into effect in December 2026, "contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism."
"Palestine firmly rejects the justifications provided by the United States for its withdrawal, considering them an unacceptable politicization of UNESCO's work and a failed attempt to deflect attention from the violations committed by Israel."
The Trump administration, along with many establishment Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has explicitly equated expressions of support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. UNESCO has denounced the Israeli government and military for their destruction of schools and cultural sites and their killing of journalists in Gaza.
Azoulay emphasized that UNESCO is "the only United Nations agency responsible" for promoting Holocaust education and for the global fight against antisemitism, "and its work has been unanimously acclaimed by major specialized organizations such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., the World Jewish Congress and its American Section, and the American Jewish Committee (AJC)."
"UNESCO will continue to carry out these missions," she said, "despite inevitably reduced resources."
The agency is also well known for designating World Heritage sites, more than 20 of which are in the United States.
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the withdrawal from UNESCO "another assault by the Trump administration on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership."
Along with promoting education about the Holocaust, Meeks said, UNESCO "directly benefits the U.S. economy through its Creative Cities and World Heritage programs, through which the United States has recently secured two new World Heritage inscriptions in Ohio and Pennsylvania—promoting to the world the beauty, culture, and heritage of American cities."
Before Trump withdrew from UNESCO for the first time in 2017, the Obama administration cut funding to the organization after it admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011.
The state of Palestine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "deep regret" over the Trump administration's decision on Tuesday.
"Palestine firmly rejects the justifications provided by the United States for its withdrawal, considering them an unacceptable politicization of UNESCO's work and a failed attempt to deflect attention from the violations committed by Israel, the illegal occupying power, against heritage, culture, and archaeological sites in Palestine, as well as in other areas such as education, science, media, and the environment," said officials.
The ministry also advised the U.S. not to "bind its own international standing to the crimes and violations committed by Israel."
"Otherwise," it said, "it would find itself compelled to withdraw from the entire multilateral international system, in order to shield Israel from accountability, thus encouraging it to continue perpetrating its crimes as a rogue state operating outside the framework of international legality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Decry Rubio's 'Deeply Unserious' State Department Overhaul Plan
One observer called the proposal "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy."
Apr 23, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's plan to streamline what he called the "bloated" State Department by slashing staff and closing or consolidating bureaus was widely criticized Tuesday as a dangerous retreat from diplomacy and soft power that would weaken U.S. standing abroad and boost adversaries.
"In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition," Rubio said in a statement. "Over the past 15 years, the department's footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared."
"But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy," he added. "The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America's core national interests. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the department into the 21st century."
Marco Rubio says the State Department has been “beholden to radical political ideology.” Also known as democracy.
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob ( @markjacob.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Rubio's proposal includes a 15% department-wide staff reduction, the elimination of 132 of the agency's 734 bureaus and offices, and the consolidation of many others, according to reports. Bureaus and programs expected to be eliminated or merged include the Office of Global Women's Issues; the war crimes and civilian protection divisions; and the agency's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, which have been banned throughout the executive branch. The position of special climate envoy will also be eliminated.
The Office of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights is slated to be replaced by a new division for the coordination for foreign assistance and humanitarian affairs that will assume responsibilities once shouldered by the embattled U.S. Agency for International Development. Already under siege by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, USAID is reeling from Rubio's announcement last month that the vast majority of its programs would be canceled.
Christopher Le Mon, a former senior department official during the Biden administration, told The New York Times Tuesday that the plan's human rights scaleback "sends a clear signal that the Trump administration cares less about fundamental freedoms than it does about cutting deals with autocrats and tyrants."
In a Substack post published Tuesday, Rubio accused the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of becoming "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders" and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of funneling "millions of taxpayer dollars to international organizations and NGOs that facilitated mass migration around the world, including the invasion on our southern border."
Responding to this, Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns at ActionAid USA, said that "Secretary Rubio's rant against the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor as the carrier of a leftist agenda lays the administration's intentions bare: Their decimation of the State Department is part of an unhinged crusade against perceived 'woke' policies and practices, not a coherent plan for reform."
"The idea that any part of the State Department was supporting an 'invasion' of the U.S. southern border is similarly ludicrous," Wu added. "The proposed staff reductions at the State Department, when taken in conjunction with the dismantling of USAID, will hamper the diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world. This is a deeply unserious proposal that will not make the U.S. safer or stronger."
"Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, called Rubio's plan "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy" that will "further decimate U.S. influence and standing in the world, undermining our fundamental security and other critical interests."
"Coupled with the administration's intention to dramatically increase military spending, this decimation of the State Department also serves as a clear indication that it is prioritizing militarism over diplomacy," Williams said. "Donald Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Democratic lawmakers also condemned Rubio's proposal, with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserting that "any changes to the State Department and USAID must be carefully weighed with the real costs to American security and leadership."
"As I and many of my Democratic colleagues have made clear, we welcome reforms where needed—but they must be done with care," she continued. "Elon Musk and his team have engaged in a slash-and-burn campaign targeting federal employees, terminating critical programs at State and USAID, undermining our allies, and diminishing American leadership in the world."
"A strong and mission-ready State Department advances American national security interests, opens up new markets for American workers and companies, and promotes global peace and stability," Shaheen added. "It remains to be seen how the administration's latest proposals will achieve that goal."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that Rubio's proposed reorganization "would leave the State Department ill-equipped to advance U.S. national security interests."
"The vital work left on Secretary Rubio's cutting-room floor represents significant pillars of our foreign policy long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Sen. Rubio—not 'radical ideologies' as he now claims," Meeks added. "Retreating from this work will further erode our national security and undermine our influence on the world stage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular