Part ofmilitary force →

FEDERALhearing transcript

High Impact

Senate Hearing on Updating Military Force Authorization

Original title: REVIEWING CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE

January 1, 2019

military force AUMF congressional authority war powers terrorism national security

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing addresses the legal basis for U.S. military operations abroad, specifically whether Congress should replace the 2001 to better define the scope, duration, and targets of ongoing and future military engagements.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

U.S. Military Personnel

They operate under the legal authority provided by the AUMF, which dictates the scope and legitimacy of their combat deployments.

The President

The AUMF defines the extent of the President's executive power to initiate and conduct military actions without further congressional approval.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2019.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to discuss the need for Congress to update the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (). Senators and experts examined whether the existing legal framework, passed after 9/11, remains sufficient for current counter-terrorism operations against groups like ISIS.

Key Facts

The 2001 AUMF is the primary legal authority currently used by the President to conduct drone strikes and deploy troops against terrorist groups.
The committee is debating whether the 2001 AUMF covers modern terrorist groups that have limited or no connection to the 9/11 attacks.
Chairman Corker stated that the U.S. is approaching a point where soldiers will deploy under legal authority passed before they were born.
The Chairman identified three main obstacles to passing a new AUMF: the current law provides necessary authority that shouldn't expire, political disagreement over limiting presidential power, and the risk that failing to pass a new bill could signal disunity.
The hearing took place on June 20, 2017, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The committee received testimony from John B. Bellinger III and Kathleen H. Hicks.
Additional materials were submitted by Third Way and Human Rights First.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 2001 AUMF?

It is a law passed by Congress shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorizes the President to use military force against those responsible for the attacks and those who harbored them.

Why are senators discussing a new authorization?

Many members of Congress believe the 2001 law is outdated because it is being used to fight groups that did not exist in 2001 and have little connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Why It Matters

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Legislative Frustration with Executive War Powers

The hearing highlights a multi-year effort by Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in authorizing war, noting that the 2001 AUMF has been used for over a decade beyond its original intent.

Bob Corker Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Connected Entities

organizationISIS“Terrorist group cited as a primary target of current military operations”Map →

personJohn B. Bellinger III“Witness and Partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP”Map →

personKathleen H. Hicks“Witness and Director of the International Security Program at CSIS”Map →

personBob Corker“Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee”Map →

organizationSenate Committee on Foreign Relations“Congressional committee overseeing the hearing”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance85
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy60
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz20
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools