After more than two decades of war, shifting alliances, and political debate, the United States Congress has taken a decisive step to close one of the most controversial chapters in recent American history. On October 9, 2025, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to repeal both the 2002 and 1991 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) in Iraq, signaling a rare moment of bipartisan unity and a significant reassertion of congressional war-making powers.
The measure, sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Todd Young of Indiana, was attached to the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to AP News, the Senate passed the NDAA, including the repeal amendment, by a robust 77-20 vote. This followed a voice vote on the amendment itself, which drew no objections and lasted only a few seconds—a strikingly swift conclusion to a debate that has lingered for years. The House had already voted in September 2025 to return basic war powers to Congress, and with similar language in both chambers’ versions of the bill, the measure is now headed to conference committee, where lawmakers will reconcile the final details.
The 2002 AUMF, which authorized military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and the 1991 Gulf War authorization have long been criticized for enabling executive military action without direct congressional approval. As AP News and Reuters both reported, supporters of the repeal argue that these decades-old authorizations are no longer necessary and pose a risk of future misuse. Senator Kaine, reflecting on the significance of the vote, said, “Congress is responsible for both declaring wars and ending them because decisions as important as whether or not to send our troops into harm’s way warrant careful deliberation and consensus … the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs are no longer necessary, serve no operational purpose, and run the risk of potential misuse.”
Representative Chip Roy echoed these sentiments in his previous support of the bill, stating, “The framers gave Congress the grave duty to deliberate the questions of war and peace, but for far too long this body has abdicated this duty. We must do our job. Repealing the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs … is necessary to ensure these decades old and outdated authorities are not abused in the future.”
The push for repeal comes amid a broader effort to restore the constitutional balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8, but successive administrations have relied on standing authorizations to justify a wide range of military operations. The Obama administration, for instance, cited the 2002 Iraq AUMF as an “alternative statutory basis” for its 2014 campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. More recently, the Trump administration used the same authorization as part of its legal rationale for the 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassim Soleimani.
Despite these high-profile uses, the 2002 and 1991 authorizations have otherwise been rarely invoked in recent years. The 2001 AUMF, which remains in effect, continues to provide broad authority for counterterrorism operations against groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. This distinction is important: while the 2002 and 1991 resolutions focused on Iraq, the 2001 measure covers a much wider array of threats and has served as the legal backbone for U.S. military actions across multiple continents.
The repeal effort has been years in the making. The House first voted to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs in June 2021, and the Senate followed suit in March 2023. However, because the votes did not occur during the same congressional session, the legislation failed to become law. This time, with parallel provisions in both chambers’ versions of the NDAA, supporters are optimistic that Congress will finally close the legal chapter on the Iraq War authorizations.
For many lawmakers, the vote is about more than legal housekeeping—it’s about learning from the past and preventing future mistakes. The Iraq War, launched in 2003 based on claims that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, resulted in catastrophic human costs: hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and nearly 5,000 U.S. troops killed. As AP News noted, the war’s legacy continues to shape U.S. foreign policy and the broader Middle East.
Senator Kaine, reflecting on the war’s impact, said, “America is forever changed by those wars, and the Middle East is too.” The sentiment was echoed by Senator Young, who remarked, “Congress is now very clearly asserting that it is our prerogative and our responsibility not only to authorize but also to bring to an end military conflicts.” Young also expressed hope that President Trump would “take great pride” in signing the bill, noting that Trump campaigned on ending so-called “forever wars.” If the measure becomes law, Trump would be the first president in recent history to formally end the legal basis for the Iraq War.
Yet, uncertainty remains over whether President Trump will ultimately support the repeal. During his first term, Trump’s administration cited the 2002 Iraq resolution to justify the Soleimani strike, but otherwise, the authorization has been largely dormant. Young, for his part, believes that the president should view the repeal as an opportunity to set a new precedent for executive restraint and congressional oversight.
Not everyone is convinced that repealing the authorizations is the right move. Some opponents, as reported by AP News, warn that the action could constrain the president’s ability to respond quickly to emerging threats without formal approval from Congress. They argue that in an era of unpredictable global challenges, the executive branch needs flexibility to protect U.S. interests abroad. Despite these concerns, the Senate’s strong bipartisan vote suggests that a broad consensus has emerged in favor of rebalancing war powers.
The legislative process is not yet complete. The NDAA, with its repeal language, now heads to a conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators will iron out any differences. If the final bill passes both chambers, it will go to the White House for the president’s signature. Given the bipartisan momentum and the inclusion of identical repeal language in both versions, supporters are hopeful that Congress will finally succeed where previous efforts have stalled.
As the United States prepares to mark the end of its formal military engagement in Iraq, lawmakers and observers alike are reflecting on the lessons of the past two decades. The repeal of the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs is more than a symbolic gesture—it’s a deliberate attempt to restore constitutional order, prevent future abuses, and ensure that decisions of war and peace are made with the careful deliberation they deserve.
One thing is certain: the Senate’s vote marks a turning point in how America approaches questions of war, peace, and presidential power. Whether this shift will endure remains to be seen, but for now, Congress has reclaimed a measure of its authority—and, perhaps, a bit of its conscience.
