Fact check: Did Biden drop bombs without Congress permission

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, President Biden did drop bombs without explicit Congressional permission. The evidence shows that Biden launched military attacks on Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen without seeking congressional approval, which several lawmakers argued violated Article 1 of the US Constitution ^[1]. A bipartisan group of lawmakers raised concerns over these US military strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels, urging the Biden administration to get congressional authorization before taking further military action in the Middle East ^[2].

Biden ordered a strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without Congressional approval ^[3]. US Representatives expressed concerns over the lack of congressional approval for these military strikes in Yemen, citing the US Constitution's grant of sole power to authorize offensive military action to Congress ^[4].

However, Biden cited the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2002 and Article II powers to justify taking military actions against Iran-backed militant groups ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context about presidential military authority. This is not a Biden-specific issue but rather a bipartisan pattern spanning multiple administrations. Presidents of both parties have launched military action without Congress declaring war, with Trump's bombing of Iran being just one example in this historical pattern ^[6]. The analyses note that this is a bipartisan issue with many presidents ignoring Congressional authority on military actions ^[3].

Legal experts and constitutional scholars have differing opinions on the constitutionality of such presidential actions ^[7]. Some argue that presidents have inherent Article II powers to conduct limited military operations, while others contend that the Constitution requires Congressional authorization for offensive military actions.

Who benefits from different narratives:

• Military contractors and defense industry benefit from expanded presidential war powers as they enable quicker military responses and increased defense spending
• Congressional leaders benefit from emphasizing constitutional violations as it reinforces legislative authority and provides political ammunition
• Executive branch officials benefit from broad interpretations of presidential power as it increases their operational flexibility

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains implicit bias by singling out Biden without acknowledging that this is a systemic issue affecting multiple presidencies across party lines. The question frames this as a Biden-specific constitutional violation when the evidence shows this is a longstanding bipartisan practice ^[3].

The question also lacks nuance about legal justifications that presidents typically cite, such as existing AUMFs and Article II powers ^[5]. By omitting this context, the question presents a misleadingly simple constitutional violation narrative.

The timing of the question is also potentially misleading - while the analyses show Biden did conduct strikes without explicit Congressional approval, they occurred in the context of responding to attacks on US forces and commercial shipping, which presidents often argue falls under defensive rather than offensive military action.