House Set to Vote on Repealing Military Force Approvals

The House is preparing for a vote to repeal two enduring approvals for the use of military force (AUMFs) in Iraq. This follows a successful challenge by three members of the House Freedom Caucus against GOP leadership within the Rules Committee earlier this week.

The AUMF, a resolution passed by Congress, grants the President the authority to deploy military force without the need for a formal declaration of war. Essentially, it provides a legal basis for military action in certain circumstances.

This debate arose on Tuesday during a committee meeting focused on the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Representatives Ralph Norman (R-SC), Chip Roy (R-TX), and Morgan Griffith (R-VA) joined forces with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), a leading Democrat on the committee. They support the idea of voting on the repeal of the AUMFs enacted in 1991 and 2002.

Proponents of repeal argue that these AUMFs are outdated and suggest the need for new, coordinated authorizations that reflect current threats.

The committee also passed the Structured Rules for HR 3838, the 2026 NDAA, with a 9-4 vote. These structured rules dictate which amendments will be considered, including discussion limits and how they’re handled.

The House later approved these rules narrowly—by 210-207 and again by 213-207. This indicates the tightrope of defense legislation even in light of an uprising among some members.

Typically, Republicans on the Rules Committee block Democratic measures. However, this amendment passed with a 7-4 vote, supported by all Democrats and three Republican dissenters, while the rest of the GOP opposed it.

Previously, the House voted to eliminate the 2002 AUMF in 2021, yet the Senate acted last year to maintain both the 2002 and 1991 authorizations.

This turn of events is seen as an unusual moment of defiance within the Rules Committee, a crucial part of GOP leadership historically favored by party speakers.

Yet, there have been shifts in the committee over recent years, with several members showing more independence at times. They had won concessions during negotiations under former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

The Rules Committee plays a pivotal role in determining which bills reach the House floor. Traditionally, it has been an essential element of GOP leadership, as speakers tend to place a high value on loyalty within committees to control procedural flows.

Some members of the committee assert that they are safeguarding U.S. national security by preventing reckless changes from being considered directly by the House.

Co-hosting alongside House Foreign Affairs Committee member Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Rep. Roy emphasized the necessity to replace the outdated AUMF with a new one that aligns with today’s threats.

“Opposition to the repeal of the AUMF mainly comes from the Defense Hawks,” Roy noted. “It’s been 23 years since the 2002 AUMF was established for Iraq, and the main figure back then is long gone.”

However, not everyone agrees with this perspective.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) expressed online that revoking these authorizations could enable Iranian militias in Iraq and jeopardize American families. He pointed out that these same regulations were used by President Trump to eliminate terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) indicated that leadership is bracing for a contentious debate on this issue.

“The debate over AUMFs has always been intense, and I’m sure we’ll have serious discussions about the right time for military engagement and the associated rules of engagement,” Scalise mentioned. “We’re expecting a vigorous debate on the House floor.”

On the flip side, there are those who believe that the AUMF is far from outdated, asserting that it plays a vital role in protecting Americans abroad.

Despite numerous attempts by Democrats and some Republicans to dismantle the Iraq war authorizations, critics argue that this strategy overlooks the prevailing threats in the area. They warn that repeal might signal weakness to Iran and its affiliates.

Lawmakers like Rep. Wilson have pointed out the significance of the 2002 AUMF, which was used to justify the strike on Soleimani, who was responsible for assaults on U.S. forces and allies.

In 2020, Soleimani was killed by a U.S. missile strike while he traveled with Iraqi militia leaders. It’s noteworthy that while the 2002 AUMF provided some legal support for this action, the administration also invoked the President’s constitutional authority.