Which specific strikes during the Biden presidency were challenged as lacking congressional approval?
Executive summary
Multiple U.S. strikes during the Biden presidency—most prominently the January 2024 U.S.–UK airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen—were publicly challenged by members of Congress as having been carried out without prior congressional authorization [1] [2]. Lawmakers and legal analysts also pointed to earlier Biden-era actions, including targeted strikes in Syria (February 2021) and operations against Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, as examples where critics said Congress was bypassed [3] [4].
1. Yemen strikes (January 2024): the flashpoint that reignited the debate
President Biden’s authorization of air and naval strikes against Houthi-controlled sites in Yemen in January 2024 prompted a bipartisan chorus of members of Congress who said he did not seek congressional approval before launching the operation, even though the administration notified Congress in advance [2] [1]. Progressive Democrats including Pramila Jayapal, Rashida Tlaib and Ro Khanna publicly declared the strikes unconstitutional or urged consultation with Congress, while Republican leaders offered mixed reactions—some praising the action even as others warned against long-term entanglement without legislative authorization [5] [2]. The administration justified the strikes as defensive and has asserted existing authorities—including prior AUMFs and Article II powers—while critics argued there was no current congressional authorization for offensive action against the Houthis [6] [7].
2. Syria strikes (February 2021): an earlier instance raised by critics
Biden’s February 2021 airstrikes in Syria, conducted early in his term, were cited by lawmakers and commentators as another instance when the president ordered military force without seeking Congress’s prior approval; those strikes drew criticism from some members of Congress who questioned whether they met narrow self‑defense exceptions [3] [8]. The White House framed such actions as limited defensive measures, while critics said they did not repel an imminent attack and therefore should have been authorized by Congress under Article I [8] [3].
3. Strikes against Iran‑aligned militias and Kataib Hezbollah: the Iraq context
Members of Congress and observers pointed to strikes against Iran‑backed militias—such as December strikes on sites used by Kataib Hezbollah and other actions in Iraq and Syria—as additional examples during the Biden years where congressional approval was not sought in advance [3] [7]. Some reporting notes Biden relied at times on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs or on claimed Article II defensive authority to justify these operations, prompting calls from lawmakers for clearer congressional votes or new authorizations rather than executive unilateralism [7] [4].
4. Administration’s legal framing and the counter‑argument from history and precedent
The Biden administration has submitted War Powers Resolution reports and has sometimes invoked a mix of Article II authority and past AUMFs to justify strikes, arguing actions were defensive responses to attacks or imminent threats [7]. Defenders of executive flexibility stress a long history of presidents taking limited defensive military action without prior congressional approval—citing precedents across administrations and scholarly interpretations that the commander‑in‑chief role permits timely defensive measures—an argument raised explicitly in analyses of the Yemen strikes [9] [10].
5. What is contested and what reporting does not settle
Reporting clearly identifies the Yemen January 2024 strikes, the February 2021 Syria strikes, and various actions against Iran‑aligned groups (including December strikes on Kataib Hezbollah sites) as specific Biden‑era operations criticized by members of Congress for lacking prior authorization [2] [3]. What remains unsettled in public reporting is whether each action legally required prior congressional authorization under the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution—a question the administration answers with self‑defense and statutory rationales while critics demand explicit congressional votes and point to the need for Congress to reassert war‑powers checks [7] [11]. Sources document the dispute but do not provide a definitive judicial resolution of those legal claims [7] [9].