This week Congressman Mike Johnson was voted in as Speaker of the House, following three weeks of rare genuine uncertainty in Washington. Johnson’s path to one of the most powerful positions in DC is an unusual one, a historically modest fundraiser who previously held a lower-level position in Republican leadership as Vice Chairman of the GOP Conference.
Speaker Johnson owes his position to a variety of interesting factors. First, the historically successful use of a motion to vacate, which ended the speakership of Kevin McCarthy over concerns from eight Republicans after failing to uphold promises made to the conference, including the failure to pass twelve separate appropriations bills. Second, House of Cards-style intrigue from more prominent members of the Republican conference, which saw the rise and fall of Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Judicial Chair Jim Jordan, and Republican Whip Tom Emmer.
With neither of these more traditional Speaker candidates able to form a consensus, Johnson rose as a respected and cordial member of a fatigued conference. The result was the first Speaker to receive unanimous support from their party since 2009.
Johnson’s unusual rise to the speakership is coupled with an interesting resume. A Constitutional lawyer, Johnson made a professional niche for himself by defending the religious freedom of Christian organizations. He is regarded as one of the most socially conservative members of Congress. He was also a notable opponent of most Ukraine foreign aid bills. His most prominent roles in the House were leading the legal defense of Donald Trump in his two impeachment inquiries and playing an active role in one of the legal challenges surrounding the 2020 election.
In his quick campaign for Speaker, he has pledged to restore normal order and transparency to Congress, addressing the concerns that led to the fall of his predecessor. After taking the position, he stated. “The urgency of this moment demands bold, decisive action to restore trust, advance our legislative priorities, and demonstrate good governance.” While the immediate priority for Republicans is the appropriations process, the conflict between Hamas and Israel demonstrates another area in desperate need of leadership: restraining the White House’s war-making powers.
In preparation for further Israeli escalation in Gaza, expected to draw retaliatory attacks from numerous anti-Israeli forces, the Biden Administration has already sent orders to thousands of American military personnel to be prepared to be deployed to the Middle East. This is along with two aircraft carrier groups already sent to the region.
For decades now, the US president has been able to utilize the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolutions from 2001 to justify American military presence throughout the Middle East. While the resolution in question states that the targets were “nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” it also includes open-ended language for use against “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
There does appear to be Congressional recognition that any American involvement in combating anti-Israeli forces would require a new military authorization. Rep. Michael McCaul, the Foreign Affairs Chairman, has stated he is drafting a new bill for such a purpose. Recent history, however, has demonstrated the willingness of the regime to interpret the 2001 AUMF broadly enough to justify military engagement well beyond the original scope of the resolution.
Administrations following George W. Bush have evoked the 2001 AUMF to sanction military action in not just Afghanistan but also the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia. In doing so, they have justified the concerns of Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who voted against the original resolution and has continued to call for its repeal, arguing in September of 2001 that it provided a “blank check” to the president for military use. This year, a group of Senators, including Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Mike Braun, and JD Vance, introduced legislation to end the AUMF in the name of “ending endless wars.”
While there are strong indications that the current makeup of the House and Senate would likely support direct American military involvement against anti-Israeli forces, any such action should certainly not be justified based on legislative action taken over two decades ago.
As Ryan McMaken noted in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel, it is in the best interest of Americans going forward to abandon the entire war on terror project that continues to invest American military personnel and resources in the Middle East.
If anything, the heavy-handed American presence in the region serves to motivate militants and terrorists to attack Americans who come to be viewed as occupiers and collaborators with various hated regimes in the region. The bases may be a boon for the military-industrial complex, but they provide no benefit for the average taxpayer who must foot the bill—and who becomes a potential target as a result of US meddling in the region.
Short of a complete reversal of American military strategy, however, a repeal of the 2001 AUMF would at least restore some semblance of Constitutional oversight to the US’s military actions in the Middle East. If the Congress still supports continual involvement in the Middle East, the current legislators should be required to actively vote on the matter, particularly given the significant changes to the region in the past two decades.
In the past, Rep. Mike Johnson has warned about how modern Washington has “consolidated governmental power in the executive branch, and usurped the proper and constitutional role of Congress…and that consolidation of power has really become quite dangerous.”
While those remarks were directed towards the administrative state, the same is true for war-making powers. Additionally, given the size of America’s military spending, it is impossible to separate concerns over federal fiscal matters from Washington’s continuing rubber stamp for military operations abroad.
If the new Speaker of the House is sincere in his stated aim of restoring normal order to Congress, requiring his legislative body to play an active role in any potential new military conflicts, or continuing its presence in the rekindled hostilities in Iraq, Syria, and throughout the Middle East, is essential.
