FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Summary of ISIS AUMF Proposals
Recently, there have been renewed calls for Congress to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)1 and several members of Congress have released proposals for a new law. To
ensure that the United States is empowered to counter the terrorist threat while upholding the rule of law and maintaining
global legitimacy, Human Rights First recommends that any authorization to use force against ISIS satisfy the “Principles to
Guide Congressional Authorization of the Continued Use of Force Against ISIL.”2 These principles have garnered bipartisan
support3 and articulate a prudent approach to drafting an effective ISIS AUMF.
To satisfy these principles, any new AUMF should:4


Clearly define the mission objectives and the enemy;


Require compliance with U.S. obligations under international law;

Set a sunset date for both the new ISIS AUMF and for the 2001 AUMF to ensure continued congressional support
for the use of force as the conflict evolves.
Include robust reporting and transparency requirements sufficient to keep both Congress and the public
informed;
Clarify that the authorization is the sole source of statutory authority to use force against ISIS to prevent
confusion or overlap; and
This document charts the extent to which the most prominent ISIS AUMF proposals are in line with these recommendations.
The proposals included in this analysis are those by President Obama;5 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (whose
proposal is the same as that introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham);6 Senators Jeff Flake and Tim Kaine (whose proposal is
the same as that introduced by Representatives Scott Rigell and Peter Welch);7 Representative Adam Schiff;8 the proposal
passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee;9 and the proposal published on the Lawfare blog and co-authored by
Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, Jack Goldsmith, and Matthew Waxman.10
Key
Green
Red
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Orange
Grey
Requires some modification
Not specified
Most recently, in June 2016 Senators Rand Paul, Tim Kaine, and Brian Schatz proposed AUMF-related amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2017, http://politi.co/1PkeRNi; http://bit.ly/25RL7AR.
1
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ISIS-AUMF-Statement-FINAL.pdf.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-principles-that-should-govern-any-us-authorization-of-force/2014/11/14/6e278a2c-6c07-11e4-a31c77759fc1eacc_story.html; https://www.lawfareblog.com/hasc-testimony-towards-better-aumf; https://www.lawfareblog.com/six-questions-congress-shouldask-administration-about-its-isil-aumf.
4http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/AUMF-ISIL-Backgrounder-December-7-2015.pdf.
5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf.
6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-jointresolution/29/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22mcconnell%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=2.
7 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1587/text.
8 https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SCHIFF_023_xml.pdf.
9 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/sjres47.
10 https://www.lawfareblog.com/draft-aumf-get-discussion-going.
2
3
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Overview
Clearly Defined
Target
Mission
Reporting
Compliance
Objectives Requirements with
International
Law
Sole
ISIS
Source
AUMF
of
Sunset
Authority
2001
AUMF
Sunset
President
Obama
No. Overbroad
definition of
“associated persons
or forces” of ISIS
No
Insufficient &
infrequent
Yes, but could be
clearer (see
details)
No
Yes, 3
years
No
McConnell/
Graham
No. Authorizes force
against ISIS and
“associated forces,
organizations, and
persons, and any
successor
organizations”
without defining
these terms
Yes
Frequent but
insufficient
Yes
No
No
No
Flake/Kaine No. Overbroad
definition of
“associated persons
or forces” of ISIS
Yes
Insufficient &
infrequent
Yes, but could be
clearer (see
details)
Yes
Yes, 3
years
No
Schiff
Yes. Clear definition
of “associated
forces” of ISIS
No
Robust and
frequent
Yes
Not
required
(see
details)
Yes, 3
years
Yes
Senate
Foreign
Relations
Committee
No. Overbroad
definition of
“associated persons
or forces” of ISIS
No but
requires
president
to provide
Robust onetime reporting,
insufficient
regular
reporting
Yes, but could be
clearer (see
details)
Yes
Yes, 3
years
Yes
Lawfare
Could be more clear.
Authorizes force
against “associated
forces” of ISIS, al
Qaeda, and the
Afghan Taliban but
does not define this
term (see details)
Not
specified
(see
details)
Robust and
frequent
Yes
Not
required
(see
details)
Yes, 3
years
Yes
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
President Obama
Clearly Defined
Target
Mission
Reporting
Objectives Requirements
Compliance with
International law
Sole Source
of Authority
ISIS
AUMF
Sunset
2001
AUMF
Sunset
Not clearly
defined.
No.
Could be more clear.
No.
Yes.
No.
Insufficient &
Infrequent.
Names ISIS but
also authorizes
force against a
“closely-related
successor entity,”
without defining this
term.
Very vague
requirement to
report only on
“specific actions”
and reports only
required every six
months.12
This essentially
codifies the Obama
administration’s
problematic
interpretation that
the 2001 AUMF
applies to ISIS.11 It
would permit a
future president to
interpret the ISIS
AUMF to apply to
groups not intended
by Congress.
This is insufficient
to keep Congress
and the public
informed.
Authorizes force “as the
President determines to
be necessary and
appropriate.” The
authorization of
“necessary and
appropriate force”
implicitly requires the use
of force to comply with
international law.13
Subjecting this to a
separate presidential
determination is
unnecessary.
3 years.
https://www.justsecurity.org/20163/aumf-associated-forces-slippery-slopes-data-points/.
President Obama: Report to Congress “at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.”
13 https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ISIS-AUMF-Statement-FINAL.pdf.
11
12
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
McConnell/Graham
Clearly Defined
Target
Mission
Objectives
Reporting
Requirements
Compliance with
international law
Sole Source
of Authority
ISIS
AUMF
Sunset
2001
AUMF
Sunset
Not clearly
defined.
Yes.
Frequent but
Insufficient.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Names ISIS but
also authorizes
force against
“associated forces”
and “successor
entities,” without
defining these
terms.
By failing to define
these terms, this
creates ambiguity.
It would allow a
future president to
interpret the ISIS
AUMF to apply to
groups that
Congress did not
intend to authorize
force against.
“to defend the
national security
of the United
States against
the continuing
threat posed by
[ISIL], “its
associated
forces,
organizations,
and persons, and
any successor
entities.”
Frequent
reporting (every
60 days) but
very vague
requirement to
report only on
“matters
relevant” under
the AUMF.”14
Authorizes “necessary
and appropriate” force.
The Supreme Court held
that this implies the use
of force must comply
with international law.15
This is
insufficient to
keep Congress
and the public
informed.
McConnell/Graham: Report to Congress “not less frequently than once every 60 days … on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions
taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2.”
15 Above, note 13.
14
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Flake/Kaine
Clearly Defined Target
Mission
Objectives
Reporting
requirements
Compliance with
International Law
Sole Source of
Authority
ISIS
AUMF
Sunset
2001
AUMF
Sunset
Not clearly defined.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
“to protect the
lives of United
States citizens
and to provide
military support
to regional
partners in their
battle to defeat
ISIL.”
Could be more
clear.
Yes.
Names ISIS but also
authorizes force against a
“closely-related successor
entity,” without defining
this term. Also authorizes
force against “any
individual or organization
that presents a direct
threat to” U.S. Armed
Forces, coalition partner
forces, or forces trained by
the coalition, in their fight
against ISIL.”
Insufficient &
infrequent.
Very vague
requirement to
report only on
“specific
actions,” and
reports only
required every
six months.17
Authorizes force
“as the President
determines to be
necessary and
appropriate.” The
authorization of
“necessary and
appropriate force”
implicitly requires
the use of force to
comply with
international law.18
Subjecting this to
a separate
presidential
determination
unnecessary.
“This
authorization
shall constitute
the sole
statutory
authority for
United States
military action
against the
Islamic State of
Iraq and the
Levant and
associated
persons or
forces, and
supersedes any
prior
authorization for
the use of
military force
involving action
against ISIL.”
3 years
This proposal starts with
the Obama
administration’s overbroad
definition of the enemy16
and extends it to also
permit the use of force
against vaguely defined
“threats” that are not
engaged in hostilities with
the United States. This is
overbroad and
unnecessary. If a group
poses an imminent threat
to the United States, the
president has authority to
target that threat under
Article II of the
Constitution.
This is
insufficient to
keep Congress
and the public
informed.
Id.
Flake/Kaine: Report to Congress “at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.”
18 Id.
16
17
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Schiff
Clearly Defined
Target
Mission
Objectives
Reporting
Requirements
Compliance
with
International
Law
Sole Source of
Authority
ISIS
AUMF
Sunset
2001
AUMF
Sunset
Clearly defined.
No.
Robust and
frequent.
Yes.
Not required.
Yes.
Yes.
Authorizes
“necessary and
appropriate”
force. The
Supreme Court
held that this
implies the use
of force must
comply with
international
law.20
Schiff’s AUMF folds
the authorization in the
2001 AUMF (against al
Qaeda and the Afghan
Taliban) into the ISIS
AUMF and repeals
both the 2001 AUMF
and the 2002 Iraq
AUMF. As such, there
is no need to state that
the ISIS AUMF
supersedes any
preexisting
congressional
authorization to use
force against ISIS.
3 years
De facto
3-year
sunset
from
folding
the 2001
AUMF
into the
ISIS
AUMF
Names al Qaeda,
ISIS, and the
Afghan Taliban
and authorizes
force against
“associated
groups.” These
must be
“organized and
armed group[s]”
that are “cobelligerent with [al
Qaeda, ISIL, or
the Afghan
Taliban] in
hostilities against
the United
States.”
This more clearly
defines
“associated
groups” and
requires these
groups to be in
hostilities with the
United States to
be targetable.
Frequent reporting
(every 90 days) on
targets and
locations; who
associated groups
are, “factual
predicate” for
determining a group
is an associate
group. Must also
report if ground
forces are deployed.
May be submitted in
classified form if “in
the national security
interests of the
United States to do
so.”19
Would be
strengthened by
also requiring
reports on civilian
and combatant
casualties, mission
progress, and
disclosure of legal
basis for targeting
particular groups or
using force in
countries other than
Iraq, Syria or
Afghanistan.
Schiff: Targets & locations: Report every 90 days to “appropriate congressional committees” and publish in Federal Register “a list of entities and
organized and armed groups against which” force has been used and the geographic location where force has been used; Associated groups: If force is
used against an organized armed group that is a co-belligerent of al Qaeda, ISIL, or the Afghan Taliban, the President must provide the “appropriate
congressional committees” a summary of the factual predicate for concluding a group is associated and co-belligerent with al Qaeda, ISIL, or the Afghan
Taliban. Ground forces in a combat role: If “ground forces in a combat role” are deployed, Notify “appropriate congressional committees at the earliest
possible date after such deployment consistent with the national security interests of the United States.”
20 Above, note 13.
19
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Clearly
Defined
Target
Mission
Objectives
Reporting
Requirements
Compliance
with
International
law
Sole Source
of Authority
ISIS
AUMF
Sunset
2001 AUMF
Sunset
Not clearly
defined.
No but
requires
president to
supply
mission
objectives.
Robust one-time
reporting but
insufficient
regular
reporting.
Could be more
clear.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
“The
provisions of
this joint
resolution
pertaining to
the
authorization
of use of force
against the
Islamic State
of Iraq and the
Levant shall
supersede any
preceding
authorization
for the use of
military force.”
3 years
3 years
Names ISIS
but also
authorizes
force against
“associated
persons or
forces.” The
definition of this
term is too
broad and
includes the
ambiguous
term “closelyrelated
successor
entity.”
This essentially
codifies the
Obama
administration’s
problematic
interpretation
that the 2001
AUMF applies
to ISIS.21 It
would permit a
future president
to interpret the
ISIS AUMF to
apply to groups
not intended by
Congress.
This is
acceptable, as
it requires the
president to
provide mission
objectives 30
days after the
enactment of
the AUMF. At
this time, the
president must
also submit to
Congress
benchmarks for
assessing
progress.
Frequent
reporting (every
60 days) but
vague
requirement to
report “specific
actions” pursuant
to the AUMF.
Robust one-time
“comprehensive
strategy report”
required 30 days
after enactment.22
Would be
strengthened by
requiring regular
reporting on
groups
considered
covered under the
AUMF, civilians
and combatant
casualties, and
legal basis for
targeting
particular groups
or using force in
countries other
than Iraq or Syria.
Authorizes force
“as the President
determines to be
necessary and
appropriate.”
The
authorization of
“necessary and
appropriate
force” implicitly
requires the use
of force to
comply with
international
law23 subjecting
this to a
separate
presidential
determination
unnecessary.
Id.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Specific actions: Report to Congress “at least once every 60 days on specific actions taken pursuant to this
authorization.” Comprehensive strategy report: Due 30 days after AUMF is enacted and requires information on objectives for authorizing force, groups
targeted, geographic scope, methods for limiting civilian casualties, benchmarks for assessing progress, and “a realistic end goal and exit strategy.”
23 Id.
21
22
FACTSHEET: JUNE 2016
Lawfare
Clearly Defined
Target
Mission
Objectives
Reporting
requirements
Compliance with
International law
Sole Source of
Authority
ISIS
2001
AUMF AUMF
Sunset Sunset
Could be more
clear.
Not
specified.
Robust and
frequent.
Yes.
Not required.
Yes.
Yes.
However,
one of the
Lawfare
proposal’s
authors has
noted that
the drafters
were not in a
position to
address
objectives25
and two of
the other
authors
argue in
favor of
mission
objectives.26
Frequent reporting
(every 90 days) on
targets and locations
where force is being
used. Must also
provide “factual
predicate” for
determining a group is
an associate group. If
force is used under
Article II authority,
must provide the
same information on
targets, location, and
factual predicate for
using force, as for
those entities covered
by this AUMF.27
Authorizes
“necessary and
appropriate” force.
The Supreme
Court held that this
implies the use of
force must comply
with international
law.28
Lawfare’s AUMF
folds the
authorization in
the 2001 AUMF
(against al
Qaeda and the
Afghan Taliban)
into the ISIS
AUMF and
repeals both the
2001 AUMF and
the 2002 Iraq
AUMF. As such,
there is no need
to state that the
ISIS AUMF
supersedes any
preexisting
congressional
authorization to
use force
against ISIS.
3 years
Names al Qaeda,
ISIS, and the Afghan
Taliban. Also
authorizes force
against “associated
forces” that “are
engaged in hostilities
against the United
States” but does not
define “associated
forces.”
De
facto 3year
sunset
from
folding
the
2001
AUMF
into the
ISIS
AUMF
A clear definition of
“associated forces” of
al Qaeda, ISIS, and
the Taliban, like in the
Schiff proposal, would
improve this
provision. The
administration has a
definition of
“associated forces”24
it relies on, however,
this is not codified in
law, so the term could
be interpreted more
broadly by a future
president.
24
The Lawfare
proposal also
mandates that the
geographic
locations where
force is used must
also be limited to
those “where force
can be used
consistent with
Would be
applicable
strengthened by
international law
requiring reports on
concerning
civilian and combatant sovereignty and
casualties, mission
the use of force.”
progress, and legal
basis for targeting
particular groups or
using force in
countries other than
Iraq, Syria or
Afghanistan.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-and-security/jeh-johnsons-speech-national-security-law-lawyers-lawyering-obama-administration/p27448.
https://www.justsecurity.org/20546/intellectual-but-political-aumf-consensus/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-principles-that-should-govern-any-us-authorization-of-force/2014/11/14/6e278a2c-6c07-11e4-a31c77759fc1eacc_story.html; https://www.lawfareblog.com/hasc-testimony-towards-better-aumf; https://www.lawfareblog.com/six-questions-congress-shouldask-administration-about-its-isil-aumf.
27 Lawfare: Targets & Locations: Every 90 days must “publish in unclassified form a list of the entities against which” force has been used and, “to the
extent not strictly precluded by national security, where such force was deployed.” Associated groups: Every 90 days must report to the Senate and
House armed services, foreign relations or affairs, and intelligence committees the geographic location where force is being used and a “summary of the
factual predicate for concluding that an entity is an ‘associated force’.” Article II: If the President uses force under Article II authority against a “terrorist or
terrorist organization” not covered by this AUMF, must provide the same information on the identities of the target, where force was used, and the factual
predicate for using force, as for those entities covered by this AUMF.
28 Above, note 13.
25
26