A bipartisan storm cloud gathers over the White House. More than two dozen House members, spanning the political spectrum, have fired off a stern message to President Biden: seek congressional approval for airstrikes in Yemen, or risk violating the Constitution. This letter marks a sharpening escalation in the debate over Biden's foreign policy, as both houses of Congress demand answers and accountability.
At the heart of the firestorm lies a legal question: Does the Biden administration have the authority to launch attacks on Yemeni rebels, the Houthis, without congressional consent? The lawmakers argue these weeks-long strikes, aimed at curbing Houthi attacks on ships off the Arabian Peninsula, violate the War Powers Resolution and usurp Congress's power to declare war.
Congress demands transparency and justification. "We ask that your Administration outline for us the legal authority used to conduct these strikes," the letter urges, echoing similar concerns from four Senators earlier this week. The administration, however, remains confident in its legal footing, citing consultations with the Justice Department and adherence to international and domestic law.
But skepticism prevails. The House letter, led by Rep. Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Davidson (R-Ohio), argues that the strikes exceeded the scope of a "national emergency" and represent a dangerous slide into another Middle East conflict without proper authorization. "Bipartisan majorities are tired of presidents getting us into these wars," Khanna emphasizes, calling for an open debate on effective policy instead of unilateral action.
Behind the scenes, legal eagles wrestle with the intricacies of war powers. The War Powers Resolution, enacted after the Vietnam War to curb presidential overreach, requires consultation with Congress before introducing troops into hostilities. White House officials maintain they've fulfilled these requirements, referencing notifications to Congress and the UN Security Council.
However, the administration's self-defense argument finds challengers. While defending US personnel and assets is within presidential power, the strikes primarily target Houthi attacks on non-US commercial vessels, raising questions about the legal justification for such action. Senators Kaine, Murphy, Young, and Lee have submitted a list of pointed questions demanding specific legal justifications for each strike and seeking clarity on the administration's definition of "self-defense" in this context.
The future hangs in the balance. As the legal and political battles rage on, one thing is clear: Congress intends to exert its authority. With bipartisan opposition mounting, the administration faces a critical juncture. Will it seek congressional approval for further strikes, or risk further alienating Congress and potentially violating the Constitution? The answer will have profound implications for American foreign policy and the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
