Congress fights over its own war power

• Critics say the authorization was never intended for such an operation and letting it linger could trigger misuse by future presidents.
• Some Republicans fear repealing it could embolden Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, which have carried out attacks against U.S. troops stationed there.
• Biden, who supports repealing it, has acknowledged the U.S. has "no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis."
• The repeal of another resolution passed in 2001, which also has been exploited, would be a heavier lift.

Between the lines: The 2002 authorization gave President George W. Bush the domestic authority to invade Iraq and topple the government of Saddam Hussein.

• Nearly 20 years later, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is down to 2,500 from a peak of about 170,000, and the Iraqi government is an ally of the United States.
• The Senate — on a rare bipartisan basis — is expected to vote as early as this week to repeal it as a component of approving the National Defense Authorization Act.
• Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) concedes it will be repealed but is expected to speak out against the move, aides told Axios.

Driving the news: Part of the Democratic impetus is to rebound from the heavy criticism Biden and their party took for the administration's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

• A repeal of the 2002 AUMF also would lay the groundwork for another effort to replace the 2001 AUMF for the post-9/11 "war on terror."
• Critics label it a blank check cited for operations in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Niger, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and the Philippines.
• It's also been used to justify the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

Lawmakers who support repealing and replacing the 2001 authorization insist they're a long way off from that vote. Instead, they see their plans to deal with the 2002 AUMF as a necessary first step.

• Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who's been leading the effort, said he and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are in discussions with the White House about repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

• "But the idea was always we would get another [AUMF] repealed first,” he said.

What they're saying:

• Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the foreign relations panel, told Axios: "I think that when Congress authorizes the use of force, when the purpose of its use has ended, then it should repeal it so no one can misuse it.”
• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was evasive, saying, “I am a strong believer in Congress exercising its authority of war fighting."
• "At the same time, some of the Democratic efforts in this area are really about giving a green light to Iran and the ayatollah, and trying to tie the hands of any military response to a nuclear Iran," Cruz said. "I think that’s a mistake."

Menendez cautioned that acting on the 2001 AUMF "is much more difficult." He said, "2001 is not just about repeal; it’s about replacement."

• Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a proud libertarian, told Axios: "I think it would be great" to repeal the 2002 AUMF. But he also warned the 2001 AUMF, which he supports repealing, is "a bigger hurdle.”
• Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), told Axios he's far more interested in repealing the 2001 AUMF because it’s been interpreted by a president to “do just about anything he wants to."
• "And I don’t agree with that interpretation. But now four administrations have interpreted 2001 as broad powers," Cardin said.