To repeal Public Law 107-40.

This bill seeks to completely repeal Public Law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted by Congress on September 14, 2001, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Public Law 107-40 granted the President broad authority to use military force against nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The repeal represents a fundamental shift in the legal framework governing ongoing military operations and counterterrorism activities that have relied on this authorization for over two decades. By eliminating this statutory authority, the bill aims to terminate the open-ended military authorization that has been invoked to justify military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and other locations worldwide.

The bill contains a single operative provision that repeals Public Law 107-40 in its entirety. This repeal eliminates the statutory authorization that has served as the primary legal basis for military operations against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces for more than twenty years. The original law authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism. The bill provides no replacement authorization, transition period, or alternative legal framework for ongoing military operations currently justified under the 2001 AUMF. No implementation timeline is specified, suggesting the repeal would take effect upon enactment according to standard legislative practice.

The bill contains no implementation provisions, agency designations, or administrative mechanisms. The repeal would operate as a matter of law upon enactment, immediately terminating the statutory authority granted by Public Law 107-40. The Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and other executive branch agencies conducting military and intelligence operations under the 2001 AUMF would lose their statutory authorization for such activities. No transition procedures are established for winding down operations, redeploying forces, or transferring detainees held under AUMF authority. The bill imposes no reporting requirements on the executive branch regarding the cessation of AUMF-authorized activities. The absence of implementing language places the burden entirely on executive agencies to determine how to respond to the loss of statutory authority, potentially requiring immediate cessation of ongoing operations or reliance on alternative legal authorities such as Article II constitutional powers or other statutory authorizations.

The repeal would have profound and immediate consequences for U.S. military operations, counterterrorism activities, and detention operations worldwide. Military personnel currently deployed in combat zones under AUMF authority would lose the statutory basis for their presence and operations. Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and other facilities under the law of war detention authority derived from the AUMF would face uncertain legal status. Intelligence operations, drone strikes, and special operations missions conducted against terrorist organizations designated as associated forces under the AUMF would require alternative legal justification or cessation. The bill provides no cost estimates, but the operational and strategic implications would be substantial, potentially requiring large-scale force redeployments, facility closures, and restructuring of counterterrorism programs. Allied nations hosting U.S. forces or participating in AUMF-authorized operations would face diplomatic and operational uncertainty. The absence of a sunset provision means the repeal would be immediate and permanent upon enactment, with no grace period for operational adjustments.

The constitutional authority for this bill derives from Congress's Article I powers to declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces. The repeal would restore the constitutional balance between executive and legislative war powers by eliminating the broad delegation of military authority contained in Public Law 107-40. Following repeal, the President would retain inherent Article II Commander-in-Chief powers to defend against imminent threats and protect U.S. forces, but would lack statutory authorization for sustained offensive military operations. The War Powers Resolution would govern any future use of force, requiring congressional authorization within sixty days of introducing armed forces into hostilities. The repeal would not affect the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which remains separate statutory authority. Judicial review of military operations conducted after repeal would likely focus on whether actions fall within constitutional executive authority or require new congressional authorization. The repeal raises significant questions about the continued legal basis for military commissions, law of war detention, and targeted lethal operations previously justified under the AUMF.

The bill presents substantial implementation challenges and potential unintended consequences stemming from its lack of transitional provisions or replacement authorization. The immediate termination of statutory authority could create a legal vacuum for ongoing operations, potentially endangering deployed forces and disrupting counterterrorism efforts against persistent threats. The absence of provisions addressing detainee status could trigger habeas corpus litigation and force the release or transfer of individuals deemed dangerous. Military personnel could face legal jeopardy for actions taken after repeal if courts determine they lacked lawful authority. Allied nations may question U.S. reliability and commitment to shared security objectives. The bill's silence on alternative authorities could force excessive reliance on expansive interpretations of inherent executive power, potentially creating greater constitutional tensions than the AUMF itself. Critics argue that repealing the AUMF without a replacement framework is irresponsible given ongoing terrorist threats, while supporters contend that the open-ended authorization has enabled executive overreach and perpetual warfare beyond congressional intent. The lack of cost analysis obscures the fiscal implications of force restructuring, facility closures, and potential security consequences of precipitous operational changes.