President Joe Biden’s airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria are sparking another round of debate in Congress over the use of presidential war powers, The Hill is reporting.
The weekend strikes are the second time Biden has attacked the militias. Top Democrats are backing Biden, saying the strikes were a necessary response to escalating drone attacks from the militias against U.S. interests
Biden had ordered limited strikes in Syria in February, that time in response to rocket attacks in Iraq.
"As demonstrated by this evening's strikes, President Biden has been clear that he will act to protect U.S. personnel," the Pentagon said in a statement after the most recent airstrikes.
But The Hill pointed out the most recent strikes came as Democrats were already working to limit the use of presidential war powers.
"There is no doubt that President Biden possesses the ability to defend our forces abroad, and I continue to trust inherently the national security instincts of this White House," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a statement.
"My concern is that the pace of activity directed at U.S. forces and the repeated retaliatory strikes against Iranian proxy forces are starting to look like what would qualify as a pattern of hostilities under the War Powers Act. Both the Constitution and the War Powers Act require the president to come to Congress for a war declaration under these circumstances.
And Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., suggested he wants a broader examination of Biden’s legal rationale for the strikes, Politico noted.
"Congress has the power to authorize the use of military force and declarations of war, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is planning to hear from the administration more on these strikes," Menendez said in a Monday statement on the airstrikes.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said Biden did the right thing in ordering the airstrikes.
"I believe these actions are overdue and highlight the continued need for the 2002 AUMF (authorizations for the use of military force), or — at a minimum —.the need for a comprehensive replacement before a repeal can be considered, especially given that Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are an ongoing threat to American troops," Inhofe said in a statement.
In July, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to consider a bill to repeal both the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs. The effort was delayed at the request of Republicans who demanded a briefing before the vote, according to The Hill.
Jeffrey Rodack ✉
Jeffrey Rodack, who has nearly a half century in news as a senior editor and city editor for national and local publications, has covered politics for Newsmax for nearly seven years.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.