A New Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current
Proposals
Matthew C. Weed
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
January 15, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43760

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Summary
In 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern
and western Iraq and northeastern Syria raised significant concerns for the United States. After
first ordering multiple deployments of U.S. troops to Iraq to provide security to diplomatic
personnel and facilities, advise Iraqi security forces, and conduct intelligence gathering and
reconnaissance, President Obama began ordering U.S. military airstrikes on IS forces in Iraq in
August 2014. Later in September, after laying out plans for expanded use of military force against
the Islamic State in a televised speech to the American people, the President ordered U.S. military
airstrikes in Syria against both IS forces and forces of the “Khorasan Group,” identified by the
President as part of Al Qaeda. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the
Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to
conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can
include “unilateral” U.S. operations.
As military action against the Islamic State has evolved and increased, many observers, including
a number of Members of Congress, have raised numerous questions and concerns about the
President’s authority to use military force against the Islamic State. Some efforts began near the
end of the 113th Congress to consider enactment of a new authorization for use of military force
targeting the Islamic State, and have continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however,
remains contentious. The President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February
2015, and recently has again called on Congress to enact a new authorization for use of military
force (AUMF) targeting the Islamic State. The Obama Administration’s official position on
presidential authority to use force against the Islamic State, however, has remained constant,
relying on the previous 2001 and 2002 AUMFs against those who perpetrated the September 11,
2001, terror attacks, and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, respectively.
This report focuses on the several proposals for a new AUMF specifically targeting the Islamic
State made during the 113th and 114th Congresses. It includes a brief review of existing authorities
and AUMFs, as well as a discussion of issues related to various provisions included in existing
and proposed AUMFs that both authorize and limit presidential use of military force. Appendices
provide a comparative analysis of similar provisions in new AUMFs proposed in the 113th and
114th Congresses. This report will be updated to reflect congressional activity.

Congressional Research Service

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Contents
The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response ............................................................................................... 1
Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against the Islamic State .......................................... 1
2001 Post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force .......................................................... 2
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq ...................................................... 2
Presidential Authority Under Article II of the Constitution ...................................................... 3
Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in the 113th Congress ....................................... 3
IS AUMF-Related Proposals in the 114th Congress ........................................................................ 4
IS AUMF Proposals .................................................................................................................. 4
Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs ................................................................... 6
Disapproval Measure Pursuant to War Powers Resolution ....................................................... 6
The President’s February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal ........................................................................ 7
Selected Types of Proposed IS AUMF Provisions and Related Issues ............................................ 9
Authorization Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................. 9
Identifying Targeted Entities ................................................................................................... 10
Limitations and Conditions ...................................................................................................... 11
Repealing Previous AUMFs and Sunset Provisions................................................................. 11
Reporting and Certification ...................................................................................................... 11

Tables

Table A-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th
Congress ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Table A-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in
the 114th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 14
Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th
Congress ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in
the 113th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 23

Appendixes
Appendix A. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 114th Congress ................................. 13
Appendix B. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 113th Congress ................................. 22

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31
Congressional Research Service

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Congressional Research Service

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response
In 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern
and western Iraq and northeastern Syria raised significant concerns for the United States. After
first ordering multiple deployments of U.S. troops to Iraq to provide security to diplomatic
personnel and facilities, advise Iraqi security forces, and conduct intelligence gathering and
reconnaissance, President Obama began ordering U.S. military airstrikes on IS forces in Iraq in
August 2014. Later in September, after laying out plans for expanded use of military force against
the Islamic State in a televised speech to the American people, the President ordered U.S. military
airstrikes in Syria against both IS forces and forces of the “Khorasan Group,” identified by the
President as part of Al Qaeda. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the
Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to
conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can
include “unilateral” U.S. operations.1 The intensified U.S. military engagement has raised
numerous questions in Congress and beyond about the President’s authority to use military force
against the Islamic State.2 Some efforts began near the end of the 113th Congress to consider
enactment of a new authorization for use of military force targeting the Islamic State, and have
continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however, remains contentious. In addition, the
President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February 2015, and recently has
again called on Congress to enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State.3
Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against
the Islamic State
The President in his August 2014 notifications to Congress of deployments and airstrikes in Iraq
indicated his powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive under Article II of the
Constitution gave him authority to undertake such action. Obama Administration officials and the
President’s September 2014 notifications4 to Congress for airstrikes and other actions in Iraq and
Syria, however, stated that two enacted authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs), the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF; P.L. 107-40), and the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (2002 AUMF; P.L. 107-243), provide
authorization for certain U.S. military strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well
as the Khorasan Group of Al Qaeda in Syria. After these notifications, however, the President
indicated on November 5, 2014, that he intended to enter into discussions with congressional

1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, hearing on regional implications of U.S. strategy in Syria and
Iraq, 114th Cong., 1st sess., December 1, 2015 (testimony of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter).
2 For more information and analysis of the IS crisis, the U.S. response, and related issues, see CRS Report R43612, The
Islamic State and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Carla E. Humud; and CRS Report R43720, U.S.
Military Action Against the Islamic State: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions, by Michael John Garcia and
Jennifer K. Elsea.
3 President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president; President Barack Obama, State of
the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-
barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.
4 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-
regarding-iraq; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-
regarding-syria.
Congressional Research Service
1

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

leaders to develop a new AUMF specifically targeting the Islamic State, in order to “right-size
and update whatever authorization Congress provides to suit the current fight, rather than
previous fights” authorized by the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.5 The President called on Congress to
enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State in his January 2015 State of the Union address,
and transmitted a draft AUMF to Congress on February 11, 2015. Both houses are expected to
take up consideration of a new AUMF in the near term.
2001 Post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force
In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the AUMF authorizing the President to
use military force against “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons.... ” Although the Islamic State does not appear to fall
within that language, it is possible that the executive branch regards it as one of the “associated
forces” fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban that it asserts are also targetable under the
2001 AUMF.6 The Obama Administration had stated previous to the latest action against the
Islamic State and the Khorasan Group that it will use force against such associated forces under
the 2001 AUMF only when they are lawful military targets that “pose a continuing, imminent
threat to U.S. persons.... ” Due to Al Qaeda’s February 2014 disavowal of any remaining ties with
the Islamic State, some question whether the Islamic State can be considered an associated force
under the 2001 AUMF. The Obama Administration has stated that the Islamic State can be
targeted under the 2001 AUMF because its predecessor organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq,
communicated and coordinated with Al Qaeda; the Islamic State currently has ties with Al Qaeda
fighter and operatives; the Islamic State employs tactics similar to Al Qaeda; and the Islamic
State, with its intentions of creating a new Islamic caliphate, is the “true inheritor of Osama bin
Laden’s legacy.”7
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Congress enacted the 2002 AUMF prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled the
government of Saddam Hussein, with U.S. military deployments to and operations in Iraq
continuing until December 2011. The 2002 AUMF authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed
Forces to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and to “defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.... ” Although the
2002 AUMF has no sunset provision and Congress has not repealed it, one view is that after the
establishment of a new Iraqi government, the restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty, and the U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq, the 2002 AUMF no longer has force. Obama Administration officials have
recently voiced support for repealing the 2002 AUMF, reflecting the Administration’s belief that
it is no longer needed. Conversely, another view asserts that, although its preamble focuses on the
Saddam Hussein regime and its WMD programs, the 2002 AUMF’s authorization language is
broad, referring only to a “continuing threat” from Iraq, and that the 2002 AUMF could provide
authority to defend against threats to Iraq as well as threats posed by Iraq. Indeed, 2002 AUMF

5 President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
6 Testimony of Stephen W. Preston, General Counsel, Department of Defense, before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., May 21, 2014,
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Preston_Testimony.pdf.
7 White House, “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest,” press release, September 11, 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/11/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-9112014.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 26 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

authority was the basis for the U.S. military presence in Iraq from the fall of Saddam Hussein and
completion of the WMD search to its 2011 withdrawal, a span of over eight years, a period that
could be characterized as dealing with threats to Iraq rather than threats from Iraq. The IS threat
in Iraq could therefore be seen as breathing new life into 2002 AUMF authority. In addition,
former supporters of Saddam Hussein reportedly provide support to the Islamic State, possibly
forming a link between the original aims of the 2002 AUMF and any future actions taken against
the Islamic State.
Presidential Authority Under Article II of the Constitution
Article II of the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,
and gives the President certain foreign affairs powers. It is debated to what extent Article II
authorizes the President to unilaterally use military force, especially given Congress’s Article I
war powers, including the power to declare war. The President’s authority to use force to defend
the United States, its personnel, and citizens against ongoing or imminent attack has been
generally accepted, while employing such force simply to further foreign policy or general
national security goals is more controversial. In Iraq, the President would seem to have
substantial authority to use force to defend U.S. personnel, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and any
other U.S. facilities and property. His August 2014 notifications of airstrikes in Iraq, however,
have also cited as justification furthering U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and
have described uses of force to provide humanitarian assistance, and to aid Iraqi security forces in
their fight against the Islamic State. In addition, the President’s stated strategy for degrading and
destroying the Islamic State, as well as his September 2014 notifications to Congress of airstrikes
and other actions in Iraq and Syria, are not based primarily on immediate protection of the United
States, its personnel, or citizens. Thus, it can be argued that Article II alone might not provide
sufficient authorization for the use of military force against IS and Khorasan Group forces in Iraq
and Syria.
Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in
the 113th Congress
Although the Obama Administration has claimed 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF authority for its
recent and future actions against the Islamic State, these claims have been subject to debate.
Some contend that the Administration’s actions against the IS also fall outside the President’s
Article II powers. Concerned with Congress’s constitutional role in the exercise of the war power,
perceived presidential overreach in that area of constitutional powers, and the President’s
expansion of the use of military force in Iraq and Syria, several Members of Congress have
expressed the view that continued use of military force against the Islamic State requires
congressional authorization. Members have differed on whether such authorization is needed,
given existing authorities, or whether such a measure should be enacted.
Near the end of the 113th Congress, a number of Members proposed new authorization proposals
(several of these are examined in greater detail in Appendix B). In December 2014, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee conducted a hearing and considered an IS AUMF proposed by
Committee Chairman Robert Menendez. Prior to the committee’s markup of the proposal on
December 11, the committee held a hearing on December 9 with Secretary of State John Kerry to
discuss the Obama Administration’s views on enactment of a new IS AUMF. Senator Menendez’s
IS AUMF proposal, as amended and reported favorably out of committee on December 13
(S.J.Res. 47), would have authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against the Islamic State and
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 26 link to page 17 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

“associated persons or forces,” prohibited “ground combat operations” with limited exceptions,
repealed the 2002 AUMF, and sunset the authorization in the 2001 AUMF and the IS AUMF
itself three years after enactment.
At the hearing, Secretary Kerry reiterated President Obama’s earlier-stated position that the
Administration supported enactment of a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State. The Secretary
stated that the Administration agreed with the three-year sunset of the authorization contained in
Senator Menendez’s proposal, “subject to provisions for extension” of that authorization. He
stated the Administration’s view, however, that such authority “should give the President the clear
mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against [the Islamic
State],” and thus the Administration opposed limitation on the use of ground combat forces, and
geographic restriction limiting operations to Iraq and Syria.8
The 113th Congress did not ultimately enact a new IS authorization bill, and many Members
called upon the President to submit his own proposal. For a comparison of multiple IS AUMFs
proposed in the 113th Congress and issues raised by their provisions, see Appendix B.
IS AUMF-Related Proposals in the 114th Congress
Since the start of the 114th Congress, several new proposals for a new IS AUMF or repeal of
existing AUMFs have been introduced and others are reportedly being drafted. On December 21,
2015, it was reported that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan had been meeting with House
membership on crafting a new IS AUMF proposal that could successfully pass the House.
Appendix A provides a comparison of IS AUMF proposals introduced or announced during the
114th Congress, including President Obama’s February 15, 2015, proposal. The below section
discusses key elements and related issues concerning these proposals, as well as other proposals
that aim to alter existing legislation or presidential action regarding military action against the
Islamic State.
IS AUMF Proposals
On February 2, 2015, Representative Adam Schiff introduced the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against ISIL Resolution (H.J.Res. 27). Pursuant to this proposal, the President
would be authorized to use U.S. Armed Forces against the Islamic State, but limited solely to
operations in Iraq and Syria, except for U.S. Armed Forces “engaged in training of indigenous
Syrian or regional military forces for the purpose of combating” the Islamic State. The resolution
states that the authorization does not include “deployment of ground forces in a combat role,”
except “special operations forces or other forces that may be deployed in a training, advisory, or
intelligence capacity.” The resolution would terminate the new authority provided by the
resolution, as well as repeal the 2001 AUMF, three years after the resolution’s enactment. The
proposed resolution would repeal the 2002 AUMF immediately upon enactment.
Representative Adam Kinzinger introduced the Authorization for Use of Military Force against
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (H.J.Res. 33) on February 13, 2015. The proposal would
authorize the President “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines
to be necessary and appropriate against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (‘ISIL’) or
associated persons or forces.... ” The proposal defines the term “associated persons or forces” as

8 Testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Authorization
For The Use of Military Force Against ISIL, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., December 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 11 link to page 11 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

“individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related
successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”9 It requires the
President to report on activities undertaken pursuant to the authorization every three months, and
it would repeal the 2002 AUMF.
Senators Tim Kaine and Jeff Flake introduced another proposed IS AUMF (S. 1587) on June 16,
2015. The bill contains a similar authorization provision to that of H.J.Res. 33, authorizing the
President to use military force as he deems “necessary and appropriate” against the Islamic State
and associated persons or forces. S. 1587 defines “associated persons or forces,” however, as not
only those “fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside” the Islamic State, but also any “individual or
organization that presents a direct threat to members of the United States Armed Forces, coalition
partner forces, or forces trained by the coalition, in their fight against ISIL.” The proposal states
the authorization’s purpose is to protect U.S. citizens and provide military support to the
campaign of “regional partners” to defeat the Islamic State, and that the use of “significant United
States ground troops” is “not consistent with such purpose,” except to protect U.S. citizens. The
bill provides that the authorization terminates three years after enactment, repeals the 2002
AUMF, and states that the new authorization constitutes “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” other authorizations. On December 11, 2015, Representatives Scott Rigell
and Peter Welch introduced an identical proposal (H.R. 4208) in the House.
On December 3, 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced S.J.Res. 26, which would authorize
the President to “to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations.” No
other operative, interpretive, or limiting provisions are included.
Representative Schiff announced on December 10, 2015, that he is circulating another draft IS
AUMF, the Consolidated Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2015.10 The
proposal would repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, replacing their authorizations with a new one
authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against ... Al Qaeda, the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the Afghan Taliban,” as well as groups associated
with these entities that are “co-belligerent ... in hostilities against the United States.” This
authority would terminate three years after enactment. Instead of including definitions,
limitations, and prohibitions circumscribing the scope of the authority granted, the proposal
requires the President to notify, and report certain information to, the “appropriate congressional
committees”11 when the authority is exercised, namely
 the entities targeted under the authorization (also to be published in the Federal
Register);
 the reasons for concluding that a listed targeted entity other than those named is
associated and co-belligerent with a named entity; and

9 This definition is the exact language included in the President’s IS AUMF proposal. See “The President’s February
2015 IS AUMF Proposal,” below.
10 Text of the draft joint resolution is available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SCHIFF_
023_xml.pdf.
11 These are the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee.
Congressional Research Service
5

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 details of deployments of “ground forces in a combat role” under the
authorization, with limited exceptions.12
If a notification of the deployment of ground forces is made, the proposal states that any joint
resolution to modify or repeal the authority contained in the proposed IS AUMF shall be
considered under the expedited procedure provisions in the War Powers Resolution.13
Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs
A number of proposals have been made that would repeal existing authorizations without
enacting a new authorization targeting the Islamic State. On February 10, 2015, Representative
Barbara Lee introduced the Comprehensive Solution to ISIL Resolution (H.J.Res. 30), which
does not include a new authorization for the use of military force, but would repeal the 2001 and
2002 AUMFs and place new requirements on the President concerning the campaign against the
Islamic State. Repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs would become effective 60 days after
enactment. The proposal states that the policy of the United States is to work through the United
Nations and to carry out relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, support regional efforts to
counter the Islamic State, and to ensure U.S. foreign assistance is provided only to Iraqi and
Syrian groups subjected to human rights vetting. It requires the President to develop a
comprehensive strategy, including strategy for non-military activities, to “degrade and dismantle
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and submit to Congress a report that contains the
strategy.” The President would be required to update the report every 90 days.
Senator Ben Cardin introduced Sunset of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (S.
526) on February 12, 2015. The bill would repeal the 2001 AUMF three years upon enactment.
On March 4, 2015, Representative Barbara Lee introduced a bill (H.R. 1303) that would repeal
the 2001 AUMF 180 days after enactment, which includes a provision stating that the 2001
AUMF has been used to “justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military
force,” and that “such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare
war.... ” Representative Lee on the same day introduced a bill that would repeal the 2002 AUMF
upon enactment (H.R. 1304). In June 2015, Representative Lee introduced two amendments to a
house version of the FY2016 Defense Department appropriations bill (H.R. 2685) that would
prohibit the use of FY2016 appropriated funds pursuant to the 2002 AUMF, and would prohibit
the use of such funds pursuant to the 2001 AUMF after December 31, 2015 (H.Amdt. 484 and
H.Amdt. 482 to H.R. 2685). Both amendments were not agreed to. Representative Schiff
proposed an amendment to the same bill that would have prohibited the use of appropriated funds
for the use of military force against the Islamic State through Operation Inherent Resolve after
March 31, 2016 (H.Amdt. 479). This amendment also failed passage.
Disapproval Measure Pursuant to War Powers Resolution
In addition, the House considered a concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 55), introduced on June 4,
2015, by Representatives Jim McGovern, Walter Jones, and Barbara Lee, to direct the President
to remove U.S. armed forces deployed to Iraq and Syria on or after August 7, 2014 (the date on
which the President began using military force against the Islamic State), within 30 days after the

12 The exceptions are deployments involving (1) special operations forces, (2) training, (3) advising, (4) search and
rescue, (5) intelligence gathering, (6) ground support for air operations, (7) and limited duration actions against high
value targets.
13 Section 6 of P.L. 93-148 (50 U.S.C. § 1545).
Congressional Research Service
6

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

resolution’s adoption. Under the proposal, the deadline could have been extended until December
31, 2015, at the latest, if the President determined it is not safe to withdraw such armed forces
within the 30-day deadline. This resolution was introduced pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War
Powers Resolution, which states that at any time after a President deploys U.S. armed forces into
hostilities without congressional authorization, Congress may direct withdrawal of such forces by
concurrent resolution. Although the resolution does not explicitly refute the President’s reliance
on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs for authority to strike the Islamic State, the invocation of Section
5(c) indicates rejection of such interpretation of those authorizations.
H.Con.Res. 55 was treated in accordance with Section 6 of the War Powers Resolution, providing
for expedited consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving the use of military force
without congressional authorization. The House Foreign Affairs Committee considered and
reported the resolution favorably to the House within 15 days of its introduction, and the House
ordered by unanimous consent that it would without procedural delay consider the resolution with
two hours of debate divided equally between the majority and minority if requested by Chairman
Ed Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Royce made such request on June
17, 2015, and after two hours of debate the resolution failed to pass by a vote of 139-288.
The President’s February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal
On February 11, 2015, the President provided Congress with a draft proposal for a new IS
AUMF,14 stating in an accompanying letter that he “can think of no better way for the Congress to
join [the President] in supporting our Nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which
would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”15 The
President’s proposal would authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces that he deems “necessary and
appropriate” against the Islamic State and associated persons or forces. In the proposed
authorization, “the term ‘associated persons or forces’ means individuals and organizations
fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners.” The authorization does not include authority
for the use of U.S. Armed Forces for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” The
proposal’s authorization would terminate three years after enactment, and contains a provision
repealing the 2002 AUMF upon enactment. The President would be required to report to
Congress at least every six months on actions taken under the proposed IS AUMF.
A number of aspects of the President’s proposal could be considered and debated among
Members of Congress.
 First, the President’s proposal would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat
operations,” instead of specifically prohibiting the use of ground combat forces,
or execution of ground combat operations, with exceptions for certain types of
units or operations, as some of the previous IS AUMF proposals have. It is not
clear what that limitation, expressed as it is, would mean in practice, although the
President’s letter states that it is designed to allow the same excepted units and/or
operations.

14 Available at http://www.cq.com/doc/4622425?0&pos=alert&dlvid=115410051&agenttype=13.
15 President Barack Obama, Letter from the President—Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in
connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, February 11, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection.

Congressional Research Service
7

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 Second, the President’s proposal does not include any geographical limitation,
possibly enabling the use of military force in countries other than Iraq and Syria.
 Third, the definition of “associated persons or forces,” especially the inclusion of
the phrase “fighting ... on behalf of ... ISIL,” might be considered lacking in
precision, leading to confusion in the future interpretation of what constitutes a
lawfully targeted entity.
 Fourth, the President’s proposal, unlike many of the previous IS AUMF
proposals, does not provide a purpose or objective for the use of U.S. Armed
Forces against the Islamic State in the authorization language itself. This could
lead to concerns that the authorization does not sufficiently direct the President’s
actions or provide a definition of victory, and therefore authorizes military
operations without an endpoint or measurable goal.
 Fifth, although the President states in his letter that he still intends to engage
Congress in reforming the 2001 AUMF, his proposal does not contain a provision
that repeals or sunsets that measure, unlike most of the IS AUMF proposals
previously introduced.
 Finally, the reporting requirement is for a basic periodic “actions taken” report,
and is similar to certain reporting requirements already in place concerning
deployed U.S. Armed Forces. This is in contrast to other IS AUMF proposals,
which have required information concerning all targeted entities, specific reports
on operations and effectiveness of those operations, and the budget effects of
operations.
The President, in his December 6, 2015, address to the nation after the killings in San Bernardino,
CA, by individuals who pledged support for the Islamic State, renewed his call for Congress to
enact a new authorization for use of force against the Islamic State:
[I]f Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote
to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I
have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s
time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and
committed, to this fight.16
The President made similar comments in his State of the Union address on January 12, 2016,
stating, “If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our
troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote.” As in
previous statements, however, the President did not link enactment of a new IS AUMF to the
source of current presidential authority to direct the use of military force against the Islamic State,
and indicated that military action against the group will continue regardless: “[T]he American
people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as
terrorists before them.”17

16 President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president.
17 President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.
Congressional Research Service
8

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Selected Types of Proposed IS AUMF Provisions
and Related Issues
In general, language in a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State and other groups (IS AUMF)
could either broaden the purpose of military force to include unspecified U.S. national security
interests, or narrow the scope of authorization to specific objectives related to the
Administration’s stated goal of “degrading and ultimately destroying” the Islamic State. Congress
could limit the IS AUMF’s geographic scope, authorizing force only in Iraq and/or Syria. With
continued uncertainty surrounding the Iraqi government, Congress might include authorization to
use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq in furtherance of political stability objectives. Provisions in any IS
AUMF targeting the Islamic State might address the possible effect that targeting the Islamic
State in Syria and Iraq could have on the ongoing conflict in Syria. Congress might also include a
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for the use of military force outside the scope of the
specified authorization. Proposals for a new IS AUMF might contain provisions to limit
presidential authority to use military force against the Islamic State as to scope and duration, and
in some cases to sunset or repeal the existing authority in the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
The President has stated that an IS authorization should provide the flexibility to carry out “not
just our strategy [for the military campaign against the Islamic State] over the next two or three
months, but our strategy going forward.”18 It could be argued, however, that even if limitations
are enacted and perceived later to have a deleterious effect on the U.S. campaign against the
Islamic State, such limitations could be removed or modified through subsequent legislative
action if the need arises. Such limitations and an overall lack of flexibility in any IS AUMF,
however, might be difficult to change legislatively if Members of Congress cannot agree to
changes; neither the 2001 nor 2002 AUMF has been amended, for example, despite the stated
need for amendments by observers and Members over the lifespan of those two measures.
The following sections address some specific aspects of an AUMF that have or might come under
debate in the 114th Congress.
Authorization Purpose and Scope
Some observers and Members of Congress have argued that recent open-ended, broadly worded
authorizations can empower a President to continue military operations outside of Congress’s
intent. An IS AUMF could include language in the authorizing provision identifying the specific
purpose for and scope of the President’s use of U.S. military force, narrowing or broadening the
President’s flexibility. An authorization that authorizes force to defend “U.S. national security”
against the threat posed by the Islamic State would seem to provide a broad “national security”
basis for possible long-term, open-ended military operations. Authorizing force to protect U.S.
“interests” generally would seem to provide even wider authority to the President, while
including the goal of protecting both the United States and U.S. allies could expand the range of
purposes for military action. As to scope, many past AUMFs include language stating that the
President can use all “necessary and appropriate” force to achieve the purpose of the
authorization. While this could provide the President with the flexibility he needs to effectively
employ U.S. Armed Forces, such language leaves the determination of the form and extent of
U.S. military force generally to the President. Congress could decide to place limitations and

18 President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 15 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

conditions on any broader purpose and scope provisions in an attempt to shape the President’s use
of U.S. military force. (See “Limitations and Conditions,” below.)
Identifying Targeted Entities
Any new IS AUMF would be expected to name the Islamic State (or one of its other monikers,
including ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) as the primary entity to be targeted by authorized U.S. military
force. As evidenced by the implementation of the 2001 AUMF, however, a number of issues arise
in determining exactly who can be lawfully targeted under such a provision, and the extent to
which Congress desires to define and/or limit the universe of lawful targets in an IS AUMF. First,
while specifically targeting the Islamic State provides a basic starting point for determining
authorized targets, in many cases it might be unclear whether individuals are in fact part of the
Islamic State, are part of groups fighting alongside the Islamic State, or are merely part of non-
aligned groups also fighting in the region, either against the United States and its allies or
otherwise. Congress might also wish to include language providing for future iterations of the
structure of the Islamic State group. The Islamic State might splinter at multiple points in time
into several new entities with different names and different affiliations, or combine with other
groups to form new entities. Indeed, the Islamic State itself was formerly known, among other
things, as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and its former close relationship and subsequent reported split
with Al Qaeda has complicated determinations of whether the 2001 AUMF could be applied
against it. An IS AUMF could include language that extends the authority to use military force
against any successor entities of the Islamic State.
Perhaps the aspect of identifying lawful targeted entities considered most fraught is the matter of
“associated forces.” One of the central criticisms of the application of authority in the 2001
AUMF has been the expansion of military force to target entities that successive Administrations
have designated “co-belligerent” with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In the context of the current
campaign against the Islamic State, the Obama Administration has asserted that the Islamic State
can be targeted as it can be considered a branch or in some ways a successor to Al Qaeda.19 It can
be argued that this opens the possibility of military force being used now and in the future against
a number of groups associated with the Islamic State, further expanding the universe of targeted
entities, possibly in countries other than Iraq and Syria.
Some recent IS AUMF proposals have attempted to better define what constitutes “associated
forces,” or requires presidential reporting on or certification of newly designated associated
forces, in an attempt to circumscribe the number of lawfully targeted entities and ensure
congressional input into any expansion of such entities. The term “associated forces” would seem
to apply to forces that are not part of IS forces but are fighting in concert with such forces. Some
proposals, however, such as the President’s IS AUMF proposal, include language that seems to
define both IS and associated forces, stating the term means “individuals and organizations
fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL.... ” This language might be seen as overly broad and
vague; Members of Congress may desire to more precisely define the term, ensuring that only
those forces that are determined to directly engage in military operations in cooperation with IS
forces are lawfully targeted under any IS AUMF. On the other hand, given the President’s stated
policies of defending U.S. national security, stabilizing and maintaining a democratic Iraq, and
supporting moderate Syrian groups fighting the Syrian forces of the Asad government, an IS
AUMF could eschew the “associated forces” term in favor of targeting the Islamic State and any
other individuals or groups that pose a threat to those policies.

19 See “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest,” supra note 7.
Congressional Research Service
10

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Limitations and Conditions
In considering any proposals to limit the authority of an IS AUMF, for example, by prohibiting
the use of ground forces or constraining operations to a certain geographic area, Congress must
weigh competing interests. The President’s proposal would not allow “enduring offensive ground
combat operations,” while several previous IS AUMF proposals prohibited the use of ground
combat forces or operations with specific carve-outs regarding special forces and training, among
other units/operations. Understanding the expected effect of these different provisions would
likely be key to Congress’s decision on including them into a finalized IS AUMF. The limitation
on the use of ground forces or prohibiting ground combat operations might, as some argue,
significantly restrict the ability of the President and U.S. military leadership to prosecute conflict
against the Islamic State in the manner they feel is most effective. Some in Congress might
consider such restriction acceptable, however, if it is determined to avoid the involvement of the
U.S. Armed Forces in another large-scale ground conflict following so closely upon the end of
two such conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A geographic limitation might hinder the President’s ability to strike IS and associated forces in
countries other than Iraq and Syria, despite these forces’ proven ability to cross state borders
when it suits their purposes. In addition, as more groups pledge to fight alongside the Islamic
State, or identify themselves as parts of the Islamic State itself, in countries such as Egypt, Libya,
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, it could be reasonably expected that the President might
determine that U.S. military operations should expand outside Iraq and Syria in the future.
Congress, however, might wish to include such a limitation to prevent a similar geographic
expansion of military operations to the President’s expansion under the 2001 AUMF’s authority
to several countries other than Afghanistan.
Repealing Previous AUMFs and Sunset Provisions
The President’s proposal includes a three-year sunset provision automatically terminating the IS-
specific authorization; H.J.Res. 27 would terminate the new authorization and repeal the 2001
AUMF after three years; and Representative Schiff’s December 2015 draft IS AUMF proposal
would repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs immediately, replacing them with a comprehensive
authorization against the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and the Afghan Taliban. There is concern that
Congress placing time limitations on the campaigns against the Islamic State, as well as Al Qaeda
and other terrorist groups targeted under the 2001 AUMF, would send the wrong message to such
targeted groups and the world about U.S. resolve to defeat these groups. On the other hand, a
sunset on authority to use military force could be utilized to ensure that the IS and 2001 AUMF
authorizations are not interpreted to authorize the use of military force in perpetuity, and in a
manner that some perceive as outside the scope and intent of the original authorizations. Given
the Obama Administration’s continuing reliance on that authorization to conduct the current
campaign against the Islamic State, for example, leaving the 2001 AUMF in place without
amendment might be a continuing source of confusion and contention concerning presidential
authority to use military force against the Islamic State, and in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle
East/North Africa region in general. In any case, some argue, automatic terminations of authority
might force Congress to reconsider previous AUMFs and their provisions in light of changed
circumstances, amending and reauthorizing as Congress sees necessary.
Reporting and Certification
Although the President has provided information both publicly and in briefings to Members of
Congress concerning the campaign against the Islamic State, Congress may decide to require the
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 27 link to page 26 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

President to report to Congress both before a new authorization can enter into effect, and at
regular intervals as the campaign moves forward. Ensuring Congress is being presented with
substantive, up-to-date information might serve to mitigate concerns over unchecked expansion
of the scope and duration of military operations taken under any IS AUMF. The President’s
proposal would require general reporting on the actions taken under the authorization every six
months, which is in line with the existing reporting requirements in the War Powers Resolution.20
Previous IS AUMF proposals have contained more frequent and detailed reporting
requirements.21 Representative Schiff’s December 2015 draft IS AUMF proposal seeks to replace
limiting provisions defining targetable associated forces and circumscribing the geographic and
operational scope of the new authorization, instead creating specific congressional reporting
requirements on those issues. Members of Congress might wish to have clear strategy presented
before agreeing to authorize military force, requiring a report explaining such a strategy to
Congress (such as the report required in H.J.Res. 30), and make it a condition of authorization.
Periodic reporting could require updated information on the effectiveness of previously stated
strategy, and the extent to which strategic goals are being achieved.

20 See Section 4(c) of the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. § 1543(c)).
21 See Table A-1 in Appendix A, and Table B-2 in Appendix B, below.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 17 link to page 27 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Appendix A. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals
from the 114th Congress
As discussed in the main text of this report, there have been several new proposals for
authorizations to use military force against the Islamic State during the 114th Congress, both from
Members of Congress and the President (see Table A-1).
Table A-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the
114th Congress
Bill or Resolution
Title
Sponsor
Date Introduced
H.J.Res. 27
Authorization for Use of
Representative Adam Schiff
February 2, 2015
Military Force Against ISIL
Resolution
President’s February
Authorization for Use of
President Barack Obama
February 11, 2015
2015 Proposed
Military Force against the Islamic
AUMF
State of Iraq and the Levant
H.J.Res. 33
Authorization for Use of
Representative Adam
February 13, 2015
Military Force against the Islamic Kinzinger
State of Iraq and the Levant
S. 1587
Authority for the Use of Military Senator Tim Kaine
June 16, 2015
Force Against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant Act
S.J.Res. 26
Authorization for Use of
Senator Lindsey Graham
December 3, 2015
Military Force Against the
Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant and its Associated
Forces
H.R. 4208
Authority for the Use of Military Representative Scott Rigell
December 10, 2015
Force Against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant Act
Schiff December
Consolidated Authorization for
Representative Adam Schiff
December 10, 2015
2015 Draft AUMF
Use of Military Force Resolution
(draft announced)
of 2015
Table B-2, below, provides a breakdown of these seven proposals by type of provision. S. 1587
and H.R. 4208 contain identical provisions, and are treated as one proposal in the table.

Congressional Research Service
13

Table A-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th Congress
Comparison of similar provisions (as of January 15, 2016)
President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Scope of
“The President is
“The President is
“The President is
“The President is
“The President is
“The President is
authorized force
authorized, subject to
authorized to use the
authorized to use the
authorized to use the
authorized to use all
authorized to use all
the limitations in
Armed Forces of the
Armed Forces of the
Armed Forces of the
necessary and
necessary and
subsection (c), to use
United States”
United States as the
United States as the
appropriate force”
appropriate force”
the Armed Forces of
President determines
President determines
the United States as
to be necessary and
necessary and
the President
appropriate”
appropriate”
determines to be
necessary and
appropriate”
International
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
conditions for use
of force
Types of military
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
action authorized
Target of use of
“ISIL or associated
“the Islamic State of
“the Islamic State of
“ISIL or associated
“the Islamic State of
“Al Qaeda, the
military force
persons or forces as
Iraq and the Levant
Iraq and the Levant
persons or forces as
Iraq and the Levant,
Islamic State of Iraq
defined” in the
(‘ISIL’)”
(‘ISIL’) or associated
defined in section 6”
its associated forces,
and the Levant (ISIL),
proposal
persons or forces as
organizations, and
and the Afghan
defined in section 4”
persons, and any
Taliban,” as well as
successor
“[a]ny organized and
organizations”
armed group that is
associated with” one
of those entities “if
such group is a co-
belligerent with such
entity in hostilities
against the United
States”
CRS-14

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Purpose
none specified
none specified
none specified
“The purpose of this
“to defend the
none specified
authorization is to
national security of
protect the lives of
the United States
United States citizens
against the continuing
and to provide
threat posed by the
military support to
Islamic State of Iraq
regional partners in
and the Levant, its
their battle to defeat
associated forces,
ISIL.”
organizations, and
persons, and any
successor
organizations”
Geographic
none specified
“The authority
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
limitation
granted in subsection
(a) shall be confined
to the territory of the
Republic of Iraq and
the Syrian Arab
Republic. The
limitation of this
subsection shall not
apply to the Armed
Forces of the United
States engaged in
training of indigenous
Syrian or regional
military forces for the
purpose of combating
ISIL.”
CRS-15

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Military unit/action
“The authority
“The authority
none specified
Bil states that “[t]he
none specified
No limitation
limitation
granted in subsection
granted in subsection
use of significant
provided; see
(a) does not authorize (a) does not include
United States ground
“GROUND FORCES
the use of the United
the authority for the
troops in combat
IN A COMBAT
States Armed Forces
deployment of ground
against ISIL, except to
ROLE” in the
in enduring offensive
forces in a combat
protect the lives of
Reporting/
ground combat
role. For purposes of
United States citizens
Notification row of
operations.”
this subsection,
from imminent threat,
this column for
‘ground forces in a
is not consistent
related reporting
combat role’ does not
with” the purpose of
requirements.
include special
the authorization.

operations forces or
other forces that may
be deployed in a
training, advisory,
search and rescue, or
intelligence capacity.”
CRS-16

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Associated forces
“‘[A]ssociated
none specified
“[T]he term
“In this Act, the term
none specified
“Any organized and
definition/
persons or forces’
‘associated persons
‘associated persons
armed group that is
limitation
means individuals and
or forces’ means
or forces’—
associated with” “Al
organizations fighting
individuals and
“(1) means individuals
Qaeda, the Islamic
for, on behalf of, or
organizations fighting
and organizations
State of Iraq and the
alongside ISIL or any
for, on behalf of, or
fighting for, on behalf
Levant (ISIL), and the
closely-related
alongside ISIL or any
of, or alongside ISIL
Afghan Taliban,” “if
successor entity in
closely related
or any closely related
such group is a co-
hostilities against the
successor entity in
successor entity in
belligerent with such
United States or its
hostilities against the
hostilities against the
entity in hostilities
coalition partners.”
United States or its
United States or its
against the United
coalition partners.”
coalition partners;
States.”
and
“(2) refers to any
individual or
organization that
presents a direct
threat to members of
the United States
Armed Forces,
coalition partner
forces, or forces
trained by the
coalition, in their fight
against ISIL.”
Government of
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
Syria limitation
Sunset
Three years after
Three years after
none
Three years after
none
Three years after
date of enactment,
date of enactment
date of enactment,
date of enactment
“unless reauthorized”
“unless reauthorized”
CRS-17

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
AUMF Repeal/
Proposal would
Proposal would
Proposal would
Proposal would
none
Draft resolution
Supersession
repeal 2002 AUMF
repeal 2002 AUMF
repeal 2002 AUMF
repeal 2002 AUMF
would repeal 2001
upon enactment, and
upon enactment
upon enactment
and 2002 AUMFs
would repeal the
Proposal states that
2001 AUMF three
“[t]his authorization
years after enactment
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.”
CRS-18

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Reporting/
“The President shall
“The President shall,
“The President shall
“The President shall
“The President shall,
PERIODIC
Notification
report to Congress at at least once every 60 report to Congress at report to Congress at at least once every 60 REPORTING ON

least once every six
days after the date of
least once every
least once every six
days, submit to
TARGETS/
months on specific
the enactment of this
three months on
months on specific
Congress a report on
LOCATIONS OF

actions taken
joint resolution,
specific actions taken
actions taken
matters relevant to
USES OF FORCE

pursuant to this
submit to the Speaker pursuant to this
pursuant to this
this joint resolution,
Every 90 days the

authorization.”
of the House of
authorization.”
authorization.”
including actions
President must

Representatives and
taken pursuant to the
submit to
the President pro
exercise of authority

“appropriate
tempore of the
granted in section 2.”
congressional

Senate a report on
committees” and

matters relevant to
publish in the Federal
this joint resolution,

Register “a list of
including actions
entities and organized

taken pursuant to the
and armed groups

exercise of authority
against which” force

granted in section 2
has been used and the
and the status of

geographic location
planning for efforts
where such force has

that are expected to
been used.

be required over the
next 60 days.”
ASSOCIATED

GROUPS

If force has been used

against a group other

than a targeted entity,
the President must

explain to the

“appropriate

congressional

committees” the
determination that

such group is

associated and co-

belligerent with a
targeted entity.
CRS-19

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
Reporting/
GROUND FORCES
Notification (cont.)
IN A COMBAT

ROLE
If “ground forces in a
combat role” are
deployed, the
President must notify
the “appropriate
congressional
committees at the
earliest possible date
. . consistent with the
national security
interests of the
United States.”
“Ground forces in a
combat role” do not
include “special
operations forces or
other forces that may
be deployed for
purposes of training,
advisory roles, search
and rescue,
intelligence gathering,
ground support for
air operations, or
limited duration
actions against high
value targets.”
Consultation
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
CRS-20

President’s
February 2015
Schiff December
Provision
Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
2015 Draft AUMF
War Powers
Proposal states
Resolution states
Resolution states
Both bil s state
Resolution states
Draft resolution
Resolution
authorization section
authorization section
authorization section
authorization section
authorization section
states authorization
is “intended to
is “intended to
is “intended to
is “intended to
is “intended to
section is “intended
constitute specific
constitute specific
constitute specific
constitute specific
constitute specific
to constitute specific
statutory
statutory
statutory
statutory
statutory
statutory
authorization within
authorization within
authorization within
authorization within
authorization within
authorization within
the meaning of
the meaning of
the meaning of
the meaning of
the meaning of
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
section 5(b) of the
section 5(b) of the
section 5(b) of the
section 5(b) of the
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
War Powers
War Powers
War Powers
War Powers
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
Resolution.”
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
Resolution.”
Resolution.”
1544(b)).”
1544(b)).”
1544(b)).”
Expedited
none provided in
none provided in
none provided in
none provided in
none provided in
If a joint resolution is
Consideration
addition to those
addition to those
addition to those
addition to those
addition to those
introduced after the
included in the War
included in the War
included in the War
included in the War
included in the War
“appropriate
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
congressional
committees” receive
a “ground forces in a
combat role”
notification that
would amend or
repeal the authority
provided in the draft
resolution, such new
joint resolution shall
be considered in
accordance with the
procedures described
in section 6 of the
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1545).
Source: Congress.gov.

CRS-21

link to page 27 link to page 7 link to page 7 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Appendix B. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals
from the 113th Congress22
Near the end of the 113th Congress, a number of Members proposed several new authorizations to
use military force against the Islamic State:
Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the
113th Congress
Bill or
Resolution
Title
Sponsor
Date Introduced
H.R. 5415
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Representative Frank Wolf
September 8, 2014
against International Terrorism Act
H.J.Res. 123
Authorization for the Use of Military
Representative Darrell Issa
September 8, 2014
Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL)
S.J.Res. 42
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Senator Bil Nelson
September 8, 2014
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant
S.J.Res. 43
Authorization for Use of Force Against
Senator James Inhofe
September 8, 2014
the Organization Called the Islamic State
S.J.Res. 44
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Senator Tim Kaine
September 8, 2014
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant
H.J.Res. 125
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Representative Adam Schiff
September 16, 2014
Against ISIL Resolution
H.J.Res. 128
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Representative John Larson
September 19, 2014
Against ISIL Resolution
S.J.Res. 47
Authorization for the Use of Military
Senator Robert Menendez
December 13, 2014
Force against the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant
Note: Each proposal was referred to either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, except H.J.Res. 128, which was referred to both the House Foreign Affairs and House Rules
Committees, and S.J.Res. 47, which originated in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was reported
favorably to the ful Senate.
The analysis provided below compares similar types of provisions included in IS AUMF
proposals from the 113th Congress and issues related to those provisions. Table B-2 provides a
breakdown of seven out of eight of these proposals by type of provision. Treatment of S.J.Res. 47
is included in the section entitled “Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in the 113th
Congress” in the main text of this report.

22 This section does not include proposals introduced earlier in the 113th Congress that would, for example, repeal
existing AUMFs or express a sense-of-Congress about military action in Iraq and/or Syria. Another proposal, H.J.Res.
127, introduced September 8, 2014, would recognize a state of war exists between the United States and the Islamic
State, and authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State and associated forces.
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 34 link to page 34
Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress
Comparison of Similar Provisions
H.J.Res. 128a
H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
with U.N. Security
Security Council
Provision
H.R. 5415
H.J.Res. 123
H.J.Res. 125
Council Resolution
Resolution
S.J.Res. 42
S.J.Res. 43
S.J.Res. 44
Scope of
“The President is
“The President is
“The President is “The President is
Same, except subject
“The President is
“the President is
“the President is
authorized
authorized ... to
authorized to use
authorized to use authorized to use the to conditions (see
authorized to use
authorized to use all authorized .. to use
force
use all necessary
the Armed Forces
the Armed Forces United States Armed Reporting/
appropriate force”
necessary and
all necessary and
and appropriate
of the United States of the United
Forces as the
Certification row,
appropriate force”
appropriate force”
force”
as the President
States”
President determines below) and enactment

determines to be
to be necessary and
of a second joint
necessary and
appropriate”
resolution under
appropriate”
expedited procedures
International
“with the close
none specified
none specified
U.N. Security Council No U.N. Security
none specified
none specified
“as part of a
conditions for
consultation,
resolution authorizing Council resolution
multinational
use of force
coordination, and
use of force against
authorizing use of
coalition”
cooperation with
ISIL
force against ISIL
NATO and
regional allies”
CRS-23

link to page 34 link to page 34
H.J.Res. 128a
H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
with U.N. Security
Security Council
Provision
H.R. 5415
H.J.Res. 123
H.J.Res. 125
Council Resolution
Resolution
S.J.Res. 42
S.J.Res. 43
S.J.Res. 44
Target of use of “those countries,
“Islamic State of
“Islamic State of
“Islamic State of Iraq “Islamic State of Iraq
“Islamic State of Iraq “Islamic State (or
“Islamic State in Iraq
military force
organizations, or
Iraq and the Levant Iraq and the
and the Levant
and the Levant (‘ISIL’)” and the Levant (ISIL)” “IS”), formally known and the Levant
persons associated (ISIL)”
Levant (ISIL)”
(‘ISIL’)”
as the Islamic State
(ISIL)”, as well as
with or supporting
of Iraq and the
ISIL-associated
terrorist groups,
Levant, as well as any forces, subject to
including al Qaeda
successor
requirements in
and its regional
organization”
Section 4 (see
affiliates, the
below)
Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria, al
Shabaab, Boko
Haram, and any
other emerging
regional terrorist
groups that share
a common violent
extremist ideology
with such terrorist
groups, regional
affiliates, or
emerging terrorist
groups”
Purpose
“to eliminate all
“to defend the
none specified
“to ... defend the
“to defend the
“to prevent terrorist “to defend the
“to protect the
such terrorist
national security of
national security of
national security of
attacks on the people national security of
United States and
groups and
the United States
the United States
the United States
and interests of the
the United States
other countries from
prevent any future against the
against the Islamic
against the Islamic
United States and our against the threat
terrorist attacks by
acts of
continuing threat
State of Iraq and the
State of Iraq and the
allies”
posed by the
the Islamic State in
international
posed by the
Levant (‘ISIL’); and
Levant (‘ISIL’)”
organization called
Iraq and the Levant
terrorism against
Islamic State of Iraq
enforce a United
the Islamic State (or (ISIL), and in order
the United States
and the Levant
Nations Security
‘IS’), formally known to protect individuals
or its allies by
(ISIL)”
Council resolution”
as the Islamic State
from acts of violence
such terrorist
that authorizes a
of Iraq and the
in clear
groups, countries,
multilateral coalition
Levant, as well as any contravention of
organization, or
to take several types
successor
international law and
persons”
of action against ISIL
organization”
basic human rights”
CRS-25

link to page 34 link to page 34
H.J.Res. 128a
H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
with U.N. Security
Security Council
Provision
H.R. 5415
H.J.Res. 123
H.J.Res. 125
Council Resolution
Resolution
S.J.Res. 42
S.J.Res. 43
S.J.Res. 44
Reporting/
none
Not later than 60
“The President
none specified
President must certify none
Not later than 15
Section 4 requires
Notification
days after
shall, at least once
that the United States
days after enactment, the President to
enactment,
every 60 days”
has sought, but the
President is required identify ISIL-
President is
after enactment,
United Nations
to submit
associated forces
required to report report on
Security Council has
comprehensive
targetable under the
on “status of all
relevant matters
not approved, a
strategy to defeat
resolution in a
actions taken”;
including actions
resolution authorizing
the Islamic State; not report every 90 days
“description of all
taken and planned
the use of force, and is
later than 90 days
proposed actions”; actions under the
unlikely to; and that
after the first report
“status of
authorization
the President has
is required, President
engagement of allies
sought to build a
must report on
of the United States
broad international
implementation of
and international
coalition to counter
the strategy; any
coalitions in
ISIL
substantive change
combating” ISIL;
President must
to strategy requires
and “estimated
present a strategy for
an immediate
budgetary effects of
use of military force
additional report
actions proposed”
against ISIL
In both cases, every 60 days the President
must report on uses of lethal force and their
circumstances, civilian casualties resulting from
such use of force, estimate of expenditures
resulting from the use of force, and planning
for redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces after
military action against ISIL is completed
Consultation
none specified
none specified
none specified
“The President shall consult on a regular basis none specified
none specified
none specified
with the congressional committees of
jurisdiction to provide updated information on
actions being taken pursuant to this joint
resolution in either public or closed sessions”
CRS-28

link to page 34 link to page 34
H.J.Res. 128a
H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
with U.N. Security
Security Council
Provision
H.R. 5415
H.J.Res. 123
H.J.Res. 125
Council Resolution
Resolution
S.J.Res. 42
S.J.Res. 43
S.J.Res. 44
Expedited
none provided in
none provided in
none provided in none provided in
Provides expedited
none provided in
none provided in
none provided in
Consideration
addition to those
addition to those
addition to those addition to those
consideration for a
addition to those
addition to those
addition to those
included in the
included in the War included in the
included in the War
second resolution, if
included in the War
included in the War included in the War
War Powers
Powers Resolution War Powers
Powers Resolution
such resolution is
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
Powers Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
introduced by the
majority or minority
leader in the House or
Senate within the next
legislative day after a
required presidential
certification is
submitted
In both houses,
second resolution is
to be placed on the
calendar, considered
within one legislative
day, debated for a
maximum of 20 hours,
and voted upon
immediately fol owing
debate; passage of
resolution in one
chamber requires
immediate action by
the second chamber
on the resolution
received
Source: Congress.gov.
a. H.J.Res. 128 contains two separate authorization provisions. Section 3 of the resolution operates when the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution
authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State; Section 4 operates when no such resolution has been adopted. Section 4 does not in fact authorize the
use of military force, but instead creates a process of presidential reporting and certification and expedited consideration procedures for a separate resolution to be
introduced after such reporting and certification has been made to Congress. The table therefore sets out the operative provisions and language in H.J.Res. 128 in
two columns to separate the operative language of the two authorization sections. For provisions that apply no matter which authorization section is operative, or
where the resolution does not contain the type of provision being explained, the two columns are combined.
CRS-30

A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Author Contact Information

Matthew C. Weed

Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
mweed@crs.loc.gov, 7-4589

Congressional Research Service
31