Author name: Paul Darr

As we approach Veterans Day, we pause to reflect on the sacrifices our service members have made in defense of this nation. One of the most solemn promises a country can make to its veterans is to employ military force only when absolutely necessary and under clear national purpose. Yet today we face a troubling reality: several outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) remain active, granting the executive branch sweeping war powers that bypass meaningful congressional debate and accountability.

The 1957, 1991, 2001, and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books, allowing U.S. presidents to launch military operations without fresh authorization from Congress.

---

The Legacy of the AUMFs

1957 AUMF

Enacted during the Cold War, this law authorized military involvement in the Middle East to counter Soviet influence. That era is long gone, but the authorization remains.

1991 AUMF

Passed to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait during the Gulf War, this authorization has served its purpose yet still sits on the books.

2001 AUMF

Created after 9/11, this gave the president broad authority to use force against those responsible and their “associated forces.” Over time, it has been stretched to justify combat in regions far removed from the original threat.

2002 AUMF

Authorized the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The mission ended, the regime fell, yet the authorization persists.

---

Why Repeal Is Essential

Restore Constitutional Balance

The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. Keeping these AUMFs in place allows administrations of either party to bypass this crucial check and deploy military force without open debate.

Prevent Perpetual War

The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have fueled a generation of “forever war,” involving missions that drift far from their original purpose. Veterans deserve to know their sacrifice serves clear objectives, not mission creep.

Honor Veterans’ Sacrifices

Military force should only be used for clearly defined purposes backed by the people’s elected representatives. Open-ended authorizations fail this basic test.

Reflect Today’s Realities

Geopolitics in 2025 bears little resemblance to the world of 1957, 1991, or 2001. New threats require new debates, not recycled legal justifications.

---

A Current Example: Boat Strikes Off Venezuela

Recent events highlight the danger of leaving outdated AUMFs active.

Since early fall 2025, the U.S. military has carried out a series of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, many originating near Venezuelan waters and allegedly connected to drug-smuggling networks or “narco-terrorist” groups.

Examples include:

• September 2: A U.S. strike destroyed a Venezuelan-flagged speedboat, reportedly killing eleven people tied to the gang Tren de Aragua.

• As of November 10: Over 75 people have reportedly died across 19 separate strikes connected to these operations.

• Legal experts warn the justification is murky, with many questioning whether the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs actually authorize these actions, or whether the operations violate international law.

These incidents underscore a central problem: The Administration is relying on broad, outdated authorizations to justify military actions far outside their original scope. This is precisely the kind of mission creep that Congress was meant to prevent.

---

This Veterans Day: A Path Forward

As we honor our veterans, we must also honor the promise that their service will be used wisely and only under constitutional authority.

Congress has begun efforts to repeal outdated AUMFs, including attempts to eliminate the 2002 authorization for Iraq. But this process is far from complete.

To meaningfully restore constitutional oversight:

• Repeal the 1957, 1991, 2001, and 2002 AUMFs outright.

• Require clear, specific, and time-bound authorizations for any future military engagement.

• Demand Congressional debate and transparency for military operations of any type, including naval strikes, counter-terror missions, and anti-narcotic operations.

• Ensure each mission has a defined purpose, a clear enemy, an achievable end-state, and public accountability.

---

Conclusion

The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve more than endless war. They deserve a nation that uses military force only after careful deliberation and proper constitutional oversight.

This Veterans Day, we owe it to them to recommit to these principles. Repealing outdated AUMFs is not only a matter of constitutional integrity, it is a promise to future service members that we will never send them into danger on the basis of a blank check.

Let us honor our veterans by restoring the proper role of Congress, ending perpetual war, and ensuring that America’s use of force always reflects the will of the people.

Monday, October 13, 2025 at 8-9pm CDT.
Join Libertarian Party Vice Chair Paul Darr and be prepared to ask him anything about the Libertarian Party or just random questions you might have.
https://retinue.live/pauldarrama
Can’t make it? Sign up for Paul’s Newsletter at:
https://paul.darr.org/newsletter/

The full text of the motion can be found at:
https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/gfefLjKqRMc/m/UIIhh44_AAAJ

A censure is a formal, public reprimand or expression of strong disapproval, typically adopted by a legislative body in response to misconduct that does not rise to the level of expulsion. In this case, a censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) signals to the public that the offensive remarks issued by LPNH do not reflect the Libertarian Party as a whole, but are limited to that particular affiliate. In effect, this serves as a strong distancing from the positions taken by LPNH. It also provides other state affiliates with the ability to point to the censure as clear evidence that LPNH’s statements are not representative of their own organizations or of the national party. Importantly, a censure does not force disaffiliation, nor does it compel LPNH to alter its expressed views, the affiliate retains its own agency.

In preparation, I have reached out to numerous state chairs to gather a broad spectrum of perspectives. Their views generally fall into several categories.

• In favor of censure: Some believe censure is the appropriate step, while others argue it does not go far enough and that disaffiliation is warranted. These states tend to feel directly harmed by LPNH’s rhetoric, particularly in terms of reputational loss and fundraising challenges.
• Neutral: These affiliates regard the matter as largely irrelevant, viewing censure as a distraction or waste of time, and reporting little to no damage from LPNH’s actions.
• Opposed: Opposition comes from three directions. Some see censure as a chilling effect on speech and equate it with censorship. Others are sympathetic to LPNH’s positions and oppose rebuke altogether. Finally, there are those who, paradoxically, reject censure not because it goes too far, but because it does not go far enough, they prefer outright disaffiliation instead.

The points I find most persuasive are these:

1. LPNH’s statements do not represent the Libertarian Party and the LNC is exercising its first amendment right to strongly disagree with the message.
2. Those statements have materially harmed the fundraising and electoral efforts of some state affiliates.
3. Censure does not strip LPNH of its independence, it may choose how to respond, and I hope it does so in a way that best serves all involved.

For these reasons, I will vote yes on the motion to censure. I want to stress that this is not a personal condemnation of any individual, including any member of this committee. Our focus should remain on the true adversary, the state, which infringes on liberty every day. Let us work together toward advancing liberty without rhetoric that clouds our message or distracts from our cause.