The administration asserts that Congress' 2001 war authorization covers its current military presence in the region, including U.S. air strikes against Syrian government-backed forces in May and June. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Administration sends mixed signals on Trump’s war powers

The Trump administration sent mixed messages Wednesday about a new authorization for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, encouraging senators to work on one while also deeming it unnecessary.

The administration first asserted in a letter to lawmakers that Congress' 2001 war authorization covers its current military presence in the region, including the U.S. airstrikes against Syrian government-backed forces in May and June.


But in a classified briefing with senators later on Wednesday with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, Mattis in particular reiterated his longstanding interest in a new authorization, according to senators in both parties — as long as lawmakers didn't try to excessively rein in the Pentagon.

Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) are leading a push for a new authorization in the upper chamber, while House Republican leaders last month headed off a bipartisan bid to repeal the 2001 authorization.

But given the steep political hurdles facing any new congressional effort to curtail President Donald Trump's war powers, some Democrats openly questioned whether Tillerson and Mattis were genuinely interested in a new debate.

“They have a very clear sense that they are happy with the 2001 [authorization], and it’s not at all clear to me that they’re looking forward to any conversation about changes to that," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) agreed that Tillerson and Mattis described themselves as open to a new authorization, "but under terms and conditions that, in my view, would be so open-ended that they would be very difficult" to support.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) sounded a similar note. "I read that they’re willing to work with us on an authorization, but they don’t think they need it," he said in an interview. "That’s not necessarily the precondition for a negotiation that gets to a conclusion."

Other senators in both parties, including Flake and Kaine, were more positive about the administration's willingness to keep talking with lawmakers about a new authorization.

"I think they have no choice," Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told reporters. "I think they’ll work with us."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters that "I'm confident they'll work with us" on a new war authorization even though the administration is "not seeking one."

In a letter to Corker sent earlier Wednesday, Charles Faulkner of the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs wrote that the administration "has sufficient legal authority" under Congress' 2001 authorization for the use of military force "to prosecute the campaign against al-Qa'ida and associated forces, including against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)."

"Accordingly, the administration is not seeking revisions to the 2001 AUMF or additional authorizations to use force," Faulkner continued.

That stance appeared to contradict comments by Mattis, who has endorsed passage of a new AUMF to govern the war against ISIS. Mattis chastised Congress at a Senate hearing in March, testifying that he has "not understood why the Congress hasn't come forward" to at least debate an AUMF.

Mattis argued a new authorization would send a strong signal of support to troops and allies involved in the anti-ISIS campaign, though the retired four-star Marine general said he doesn’t support geographic or time limits that some lawmakers have endorsed.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

"I was here when we passed the 2001 authorization," said Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the foreign relations panel's top Democrat. "We never intended it be used against ISIS in Syria. It was meant to deal with the threat to our country on 9/11."

Corker said before the briefing that he plans to press ahead with a hearing on Flake's and Kaine's war authorization proposal. And Flake proclaimed that "I feel good" about the prospects for movement on their legislation, which would sunset the new authorization after five years but allow for its expedited renewal.

But efforts to modify the war authorization foundered during the Obama administration amid real policy differences between lawmakers, and it's not clear why a new debate will yield a different result.

"If we can only come up with an [authorization] that ties this or another future president's hands, I wouldn’t support it," said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told reporters that "we would be on stronger footing" with a new authorization, but added, "I’m not sure that we’ll be able to get there, but I think it’s an effort we have to undertake.”

Addressing U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, Faulkner said that previous airstrikes approved by Trump "were limited and lawful measures to counter immediate threats to U.S. or partner forces engaged in that campaign."

"The United States does not seek to fight the Syrian Government or pro-Syrian-Government forces," Faulkner continued. "However, the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend U.S., Coalition, or partner forces engaged in the campaign against ISIS."

That rationale adds additional context to Tillerson's remarks during a foreign relations panel hearing in June, when he told Murphy that "I would agree" that the Trump administration has no legal power to wage war against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Connor O'Brien and Gregory Hellman contributed to this report.