Several Democratic lawmakers, joined by Representative Mike Lee (R-UT), are criticizing President Joe Biden for not seeking Congressional approval before the recent U.S. military airstrikes in Yemen, an action carried out in collaboration with the U.K. The bipartisan condemnation highlights growing concerns about executive overreach in matters of military intervention.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) emphasized the constitutional requirement for the President to consult Congress before launching military strikes, citing his commitment to upholding Article I of the Constitution regardless of party affiliation. Similarly, Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR) stressed that these airstrikes lacked Congressional authorization, reiterating that only Congress holds the authority to approve military involvement in overseas conflicts.
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) labeled the airstrikes as an “unacceptable violation of the Constitution,” cautioning against the United States becoming entangled in another prolonged conflict without explicit Congressional approval. Notably, Representative Mike Lee, a Republican, aligned himself with Representative Khanna, emphasizing the importance of constitutional adherence irrespective of party lines.
More Read
The collective stance of these lawmakers reflects a broader debate on the role of Congress in decisions of war and military engagement. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war, and these representatives argue that the President should respect this process, seeking approval before engaging in military actions abroad.
As the fallout from these airstrikes continues, it remains to be seen how the Biden administration will respond to this bipartisan criticism. 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 critique comes at a time when discussions about the balance of power and the executive’s authority in military actions have been ongoing.
The question lingers: Will this bipartisan criticism result in concrete changes in the decision-making process for future military actions? The spotlight is on the ongoing debate about the balance of power and the role of Congress in shaping the nation’s military engagements.
