House Considers Repealing Iraq AUMFs Amid Internal GOP Conflict
The House is set to vote on an amendment aimed at repealing two long-standing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) relating to Iraq. This decision comes after three members of the House Freedom Caucus diverged from GOP leadership during a recent Rules Committee meeting.
Essentially, an AUMF is a resolution approved by Congress granting the president the ability to deploy military force without a formal war declaration. It’s a way for lawmakers to outline when military action is permissible.
On Tuesday, a tense dynamic emerged as the panel governing which amendments move to the House floor concluded its debate terms for the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Representatives Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) partnered with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the committee’s leading Democrat, in a motion to allow a vote to repeal the AUMFs from 1991 and 2002.
The Committee also approved a structured rule for H.R. 3838, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026, with a 9-4 vote. This structured rule dictates which amendments can be proposed, their debate limits, and how they will be addressed.
Later, the House narrowly accepted the rule, with votes of 210-207 on the rule itself and 213-207 on a related question motion. This highlights the tightly regulated nature of defense legislation, even amid internal strife.
Normally, GOP members on the Rules Committee tend to dismiss Democratic proposals. However, in this instance, the amendment passed with a 7-4 vote, supported by all Democrats and the three Republican dissenters, while the remaining Republicans opposed it.
Proponents of the repeal contend that the AUMF is outdated and that fresh, context-specific authorizations should be crafted to address modern-day threats.
This scenario is considered a rare act of rebellion within the Rules Committee, usually a controlled environment where members are selected by the speaker. In recent years, however, a group of lawmakers has gained enough influence to occasionally disrupt leadership, a power that resulted from concessions made by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) during his bid for the position.
The Rules Committee plays an essential role in the legislative process, determining which bills are presented and under what conditions. Traditionally populated by loyalists to the speaker, the committee claims to safeguard U.S. security interests by filtering out reckless amendments.
Rep. Roy, who has co-sponsored legislation with House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) to repeal the AUMFs, argued for the need to replace these outdated authorizations with new ones reflecting current threats.
“The AUMF repeal faces strong opposition from the so-called defense hawk community,” Roy stated. “It seems a bit absurd that we’re still operating under a 2002 AUMF meant for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, especially since he’s been gone for years. We should really think about repealing it.”
Opponents have also voiced their concerns.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) emphasized through social media that repealing the AUMF would restrict the President’s ability to address Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, posing risks to American families. He pointed out that the same provisions authorized former President Trump to eliminate terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani.
In light of this, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) indicated that leadership is preparing for a contentious debate on the floor.
“AUMFs have historically stirred passionate discussions, and we’ve had plenty in the past. It’s crucial to engage in these debates about the challenging decisions regarding when to act and the rules of engagement,” Scalise commented. “I anticipate a robust discussion on the House floor.”
The House previously passed legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021, while the Senate voted last year to dismiss both the 2002 and 1991 authorizations.
However, some argue that AUMFs aren’t “outdated” at all, stressing their significant role in ensuring American safety abroad.
Despite ongoing efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to dismantle the Iraq war authorizations, critics believe that such actions overlook persistent threats in the area—and that repeal might embolden Iran and other terrorist factions. They contend that repealing the AUMF might send a worrying message of weakness to Tehran and its proxies.
Lawmakers, including Rep. Joe Wilson, highlighted the importance of the 2002 AUMF, emphasizing that it provided part of the legal grounds for the elimination of Qassem Soleimani, who had been linked to attacks on U.S. troops and allies. In 2020, Soleimani was in a convoy with Iraqi militia leaders when U.S. missiles targeted them.
Still, the 2002 AUMF wasn’t the sole legal justification for the strike against Soleimani; the administration also invoked the president’s constitutional Article II powers.
