A rare display of bipartisan concern, several members of Congress, including Democrats and one Republican, have criticized President Joe Biden for not seeking Congressional approval prior to the recent U.S. military airstrikes in Yemen. The bombing campaign, reportedly carried out in collaboration with the U.K., targeted Houthi positions in the region, as reported by Mediaite on January 12, 2024.
Among the outspoken critics was Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), who emphasized the constitutional obligation for the President to consult Congress before initiating military strikes. In a tweet, Khanna underscored his commitment to upholding Article I of the Constitution, irrespective of party affiliation.
Similarly, Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR) stressed the constitutional mandate, asserting that the airstrikes lacked Congressional authorization. She reiterated that only Congress holds the authority to approve military involvement in overseas conflicts, regardless of the President’s party affiliation.
More Read
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) echoed these sentiments, labeling the airstrikes as an “unacceptable violation of the Constitution” and cautioning against the U.S. becoming embroiled in another prolonged conflict without explicit Congressional approval.
Notably, the criticism extended beyond party lines, with Representative Mike Lee (R-UT) aligning himself with Representative Khanna. Lee emphasized the importance of constitutional adherence regardless of political affiliations.
The collective stance of these lawmakers reflects a growing concern about executive overreach in matters of military intervention. They argue that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war, and the President should seek approval before engaging in military actions abroad.
The absence of bipartisan approval for the airstrikes highlights a broader debate on the role of Congress in decisions regarding war and military engagement. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the Biden administration will respond to this bipartisan criticism.
This critique arises amid ongoing discussions about the balance of power and the executive’s authority in matters of military action. The Constitution’s framers vested Congress with the authority to declare war to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one individual.
As the fallout from these airstrikes continues, the statements from these lawmakers signal a potential push for a more collaborative approach between the Executive and Legislative branches on matters of military engagement. The question remains whether this bipartisan criticism will lead to concrete changes in the decision-making process for future military actions.
