.svg) | |
| Long title | Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States |
|---|---|
| Acronyms(colloquial) | AUMF |
| Enacted by | the107th United States Congress |
| Effective | September 18, 2001 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | Pub. L. 107–40 (text)(PDF) |
| Statutes at Large | 115 Stat. 224 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
| Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006),ACLU v. NSA (2007),Hedges v. Obama (2012) | |
TheAuthorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF;Pub. L. 107–40 (text)(PDF), 115 Stat. 224) is ajoint resolution of theUnited States Congress which became law on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of theUnited States Armed Forces against those responsible for theSeptember 11 attacks. The authorization granted thepresident the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11 attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.
In this case, the AUMF grants power to the President to determine bothwho to target andwhat actions to take. The AUMF is different from a declaration of war in that the AUMF is a statutory force authorization, limiting the President's use offull military force, which he would otherwise have in a declaration of war.[1] The AUMF was passed by the107th Congress on September 18, 2001, and signed into law by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on September 18, 2001.[2] President Bush said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" in his joint address to Congress and the American public on September 20, 2001, right after the law was signed.[3]
Since its passage in 2001, U.S. presidents have interpreted their authority under the AUMF to extend beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to apply to numerous other groups as well as other geographic locales, due to the act's omission of any specificarea of operations.[4] The adoption of this law does not require the targets to be state actors, but can include non-state actors, such as individual persons.[5] In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing congressional authorization for the use of force againstal-Qaeda and other militant groups.[6][7] Today, the full list of actors the U.S. military is fighting or believes itself authorized to fight under the 2001 AUMF is classified.[8]
The only representative to vote against the authorization in 2001 wasBarbara Lee, who has consistently criticized it since for being ablank check giving the government unlimited powers to wage war without debate.[9]
Business Insider has reported that the AUMF has been used to allow military deployment inAfghanistan, thePhilippines,Georgia,Yemen,Djibouti,Kenya,Ethiopia,Eritrea,Iraq, andSomalia.[10] The 2001 AUMF has enabled theUS president to unilaterally launch military operations across the world without any congressional oversight or transparency for more than two decades. Between 2018 and 2020 alone, US forces initiated what it labelled "counter-terror" activities in 85 countries. Of these, the 2001 AUMF has been used to launch classified military campaigns in at least 22 countries.[11][12]
Preamble
Joint Resolution
- To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 – Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
- (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided theterrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
- (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of theWar Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
- (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
An initial draft ofSenate Joint Resolution 23Archived 2008-09-16 at theWayback Machine included language granting the power "to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Members were concerned that this would provide "a blank check to go anywhere, anytime, against anyone the Bush administration or any subsequent administration deemed capable of carrying out an attack" and the language was removed.[13]
On September 14, 2001, Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (SenatorsLarry Craig, R-ID, andJesse Helms, R-NC).
On September 14, 2001, the House passedHouse Joint Resolution 64Archived 2008-09-16 at theWayback Machine. The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was byBarbara Lee, D-CA. Lee was the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the bill.[14][9] Lee opposed the wording of the AUMF, not the action it represented. She believed that a response was necessary but feared the vagueness of the document was similar to the 1964Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Lee initiated several attempts to repeal the authorization before she left the House at end of the118th Congress following an unsuccessful Senate bid.[citation needed]
The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by theGeorge W. Bush administration inHamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), in which theU.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration'smilitary commissions atGuantanamo Bay were notcompetent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal. The court held that President George W. Bush did not have the authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.
In 2007, the AUMF was cited by theDepartment of Justice inACLU v. NSA as authority for engaging in electronicsurveillance without obtaining a warrant of thespecial court as required by the Constitution.
In 2012, journalists and activists brought a suit (Hedges v. Obama) against theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, in which Congress "affirms" presidential authority for indefinite detention under the AUMF and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
In 2016,constitutional law specialist professorBruce Ackerman ofYale Law School said that theObama administration's use of the AUMF to that point had overstepped the authorized powers of the final, enacted version of the bill so as to more closely resemble the capabilities named in this draft text rejected by Congress.[15]
On June 29, 2017, a group of libertarian Republicans and Democrats on theHouse Appropriations Committee approved Barbara Lee's amendment to end the 2001 authorization within 240 days. This would have forced debate on a replacement authorization, but the amendment was removed from the bill by theRules Committee, and the AUMF remained in effect.[16][17]
In 2018, SenatorsTim Kaine andBob Corker proposed several updates to the AUMF.[18]
In November 2019, the AUMF was supposed to be grounds for the occupation ofKurdish-controlledSyrian oilfields, as the Trump administration sought legal authorization to maintain a presence in the area.[19]
GeneralMark Miley, as chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff, testified in June 2021 that "2001 AUMF is the one we need to hang on to…it is the critical one for us to continue operations".[8]
After the Biden administration conducted airstrikes inSomalia to support theDanab Brigade againstal-Shabab militants, Democratic SenatorBen Cardin, a senior member of theSenate Foreign Relations Committee, said that "What the Biden team is doing is consistent with what we've seen now in three prior administrations, but it's, to me, inconsistent with the intent of Congress" and called on the administration to "submit a new authorization for the use of military force". Some Republicans supported the strikes, with SenatorMarco Rubio, vice-chair of theSenate Intelligence Committee, saying "I don't think the president needs a law passed by Congress in order to target terrorists who are posing a threat to the United States, no matter where they are in the world".[20]
The 2001 AUMF was used as a justification for the2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats.[21] Amid criticism that drug smuggling is neither a form of terrorism nor an armed attack, the Trump administration deported survivors of one attack to other countries to avoid court challenges to continued detention without evidence or the legal justification for the action.[22]
The AUMF has also been cited by a wide variety of US officials as justification for continuing military actions all over the world. Often the phrase "Al-Qaeda and associated forces" has been used by these officials. However, that phrase does not appear in the AUMF, but is instead an interpretation of the 2001 AUMF by presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump.[23] The US government has formally used the term in litigation, including a March 2009Department of Justice brief as well as the2012 National Defense Authorization Act.[24]
According to a report by theCongressional Research Service |(CRS), published May 11, 2016, at that time the 2001 AUMF had been cited 37 times in connection with actions in 14 countries and on thehigh seas. The report stated that "Of the 37 occurrences, 18 were made during the Bush Administration, and 19 have been made during the Obama Administration." The countries that were mentioned in the report included Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.[25]
An updated CRS report, published February 16, 2018, documented two additional citations of the AUMF by the Obama administration and two citations of the AUMF by the Trump administration.[26]
The 2001 AUMF has been widely perceived as a bill that grants the president powers to unilaterally wage perpetual "worldwide wars".[27] BothRepublican andDemocratic senators have led calls to repeal the AUMF, especially after theBiden administration's escalation of military campaigns in Somalia since 2021.[28][29]
SenatorChris Murphy criticized the Biden administration's unilateral strikes as setting a "very dangerous precedent", urging Biden to first seek separate congressional authorization rather than using the AUMF.[30] Republican SenatorsRand Paul (whose father,Ron Paul, voted for it),Mike Lee,Mike Braun andJD Vance introduced the "End Endless Wars Act" Bill in June 2023, seeking the repeal of the 2001 AUMF.[31] According to Rand Paul, the 2001 AUMF has been used to justify a "worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever." Mike Braun criticized the 2001 AUMF for authorizingUS presidents to unilaterally wage foreign wars without any consultation with theAmerican public.[32]
