Did President Biden request congressional authorization for strikes in 2024?
Executive summary
President Biden did not seek or obtain prior congressional authorization before ordering U.S. strikes in 2024; the administration instead notified Congress after the initial strikes and asserted constitutional Article II commander‑in‑chief authority and later AUMF-related rationales in its reporting to Congress [1] [2]. That choice prompted bipartisan and intra‑party criticism from senators and representatives who said sustained or open‑ended strikes require congressional approval [3] [4].
1. Biden’s immediate legal posture: notification, not a request
When the administration ordered strikes against Houthi targets in January 2024, the White House informed Congress of the actions through War Powers Act notifications rather than asking Congress to authorize the strikes in advance; the administration framed the operations as defensive actions taken by the president as commander in chief [1] [2] [4].
2. How Congress was actually engaged — reports and letters, not an authorization vote
The record shows multiple 48‑hour reports to Congress covering strikes on January 12, January 24, February 5 and February 26, 2024, and a six‑month report that shifted toward citing AUMF authorities as part of the legal rationale, but there was no contemporaneous congressional authorization vote granting the president authority to conduct the campaign as of those initial operations [2]. Instead, lawmakers pressed the White House for briefings and legal explanations and some sent formal letters questioning the strategy and legality [5] [4].
3. Political and legal pushback: bipartisan concern over bypassing Congress
Lawmakers from both parties, including leading war‑powers advocates, publicly criticized the administration’s failure to secure a formal congressional authorization for what several senators described as potentially open‑ended military action against the Houthis; prominent voices demanded the president “come to Congress” before continuing strikes that could escalate [3] [5] [4]. Media reporting also captured a bipartisan chorus calling the lack of authorization “unacceptable” and urging oversight [3].
4. The administration’s legal defenses and expert takes
Legal commentators and some scholars argued the strikes fell within the president’s authority to respond to attacks and defend U.S. persons and interests — a line of reasoning invoked by the administration — and noted precedent for presidents acting without prior congressional votes when responding to emergent threats [6] [7]. Yet other legal observers and former State Department advisers questioned whether a sustained campaign against the Houthis, particularly one risking escalation, should trigger statutory or constitutional obligations for Congress to authorize the use of force [2] [8].
5. What the public record does and does not show
The sources demonstrate that the White House notified Congress after striking and later used reporting mechanisms to articulate legal rationales, including referencing AUMF bases in a six‑month report, but they do not show that President Biden formally requested or received a new congressional authorization to carry out the strikes in 2024 [2] [5]. Reporting and congressional letters make clear there was debate and pressure for an authorization vote, but the available records in these sources stop short of any documented affirmative request from the president to Congress for advance authorization [3] [4] [8].
Bottom line
No: President Biden did not request congressional authorization before ordering the 2024 strikes; the administration informed Congress afterward and relied on presidential Article II authority and subsequent reporting (and eventual AUMF language in reporting) to justify the actions, drawing sustained bipartisan calls from members of Congress for formal authorization if the campaign continued or escalated [1] [2] [3].