Key legislators, including members of Joe Biden’s own Democrat Party, have openly criticized his decision to order U.S. airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen without first consulting Congress. Their concerns highlight fears that this action might lead the U.S. into a prolonged conflict in the Middle East.
These critical remarks from influential congressional figures follow significant U.S. and British airstrikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. The military response was a reaction to the Houthis’ repeated attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea. The Houthis claim their actions are in retaliation against Israel for its military operations in the Gaza Strip, although many targeted ships appeared unrelated to Israel.
The U.S. and UK governments have described the Thursday night airstrikes as a necessity after diplomatic efforts and public warnings proved ineffective in halting the Houthi aggression. However, lawmakers argue that Joe Biden should have sought formal authorization from Congress.
Failing to do so, they caution, could lead to dire consequences.
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, emphasized the constitutional requirement for such authorization. Biden “needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another Middle East conflict. That is Article I of the Constitution. I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House,” Khanna stated on social media.
Wisconsin Democrat Representative Mark Pocan shared this view, highlighting the risks of the U.S. becoming embroiled in a long-term conflict without congressional approval. “The United States cannot risk getting entangled into another decades-long conflict without congressional authorization. The White House must work with Congress before continuing these airstrikes in Yemen,” he expressed in a social media post.
Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, concurred with Khanna’s stance in his own social media statement, asserting, “The Constitution matters, regardless of party affiliation.”
Washington Democrat Representative Pramila Jayapal criticized the airstrikes as an “unacceptable violation of the Constitution” due to the lack of congressional approval.
In the UK, there were echoes of this sentiment. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn described the airstrikes as a “reckless act of escalation” on social media, criticizing the lack of parliamentary consultation and questioning the efficacy of military action.
Biden, however, defended the military action as necessary to protect “one of the world’s most vital waterways” from the Houthis’ drone-and-missile attacks. He asserted that these attacks posed a significant threat to U.S. personnel, civilian mariners, and international trade, and emphasized that military action was the last resort following an unsuccessful diplomatic campaign.
“These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes,” Biden stated. “I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.”
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also supported the decision, citing the Houthis’ continuous “dangerous and destabilizing attacks” in the Red Sea, including recent aggressions against UK and U.S. warships. He asserted that such actions could not be ignored.