Thread by @rgoodlaw

<thread>

If I'm reading this correctly👇, potentially a broad (and invalid) interpretation of the 2002 AUMF to apply to U.S. force against #Iran/Iran-backed groups.

@charlie_savage @ritasiemion @BenjaminEHaas @steve_vladeck @marty_lederman @MonicaHakimi @oonahathaway @timkaine

@charlie_savage @ritasiemion @BenjaminEHaas @steve_vladeck @marty_lederman @MonicaHakimi @oonahathaway @timkaine @joshgerstein @shaneharris 2. The OMB statement: This has "long been understood" as the interpretation.

Oh, really?

1. Understood by whom? Senior national security lawyers across all departments and agencies?

2. If "long" then ... why did the Trump administration not inform Congress of this when asked?

3. As a matter of law, @steve_vladeck and my recent analysis applies:

"Why the 2002 AUMF Does Not Apply to Iran
- There is no congressional statute authorizing military attacks on Iran"

justsecurity.org/67993/why-the-…

@steve_vladeck 4. As a matter of policy, this suggests that the Trump administration thinks it has congressional authority to target a part of IRAQ's military forces.

Katai'ib Hizballah was formally incorporated into Iraq's armed forces.

Expert analysis:

justsecurity.org/67917/united-s…

<end>