Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016
Then-U.S. President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs on seven countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — in 2016 alone. We determined this by looking at data from the U.S. Air Force, Council for Foreign Relations, the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation.
Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates.
U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well.
As U.S. President Donald Trump authorized surprise airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 without seeking congressional approval, many of his defenders pointed out that former President Barack Obama carried out similar actions during his presidency.
Conservative podcaster Alec Lace wrote on X:
2016 - Barack Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan without Congress Approval
2025 - Donald Trump dropped 36 bombs on Iran nuclear sites without Congress Approval
Guess which one libs are mad about?
The above claim about Obama is technically correct in that he did not obtain an act of Congress to conduct his military activities, though numerous presidents — including Trump — have done the same. We looked through old databases and reports about Obama's airstrikes and drone warfare program conducted with coalition partners through the year 2016 to confirm the number of strikes he authorized.
However, Obama relied on an Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress issued in 2001 to target al- Qaida and the Taliban as a legal basis for his administration's military actions.
In June 2025, Trump sent stealth aircraft into Iran with so-called Massive Ordinance Penetrator "bunker buster bombs" to reach concealed sites. Per a Pentagon briefing, around 75 precision-guided weapons were used in the overall operation, which included missiles sent by a U.S. submarine toward Isfahan. Around 14 of the bunker busters hit their targets.
In 2014, the U.S. along with a number of coalition partners began Operation Inherent Resolve against the militant Islamic State group. The U.S. conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq and Syria using both manned and unmanned aircraft, including drones. According to data from the U.S. Air Force Central Command, in 2016 the coalition dropped a total of 30,743 weapons in Iraq and Syria.
According to an analysis by the think tank Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. carried out 79% of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2016 and was responsible for 24,287 of these bombs.
In addition, through Operation Enduring Sentinel in Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped a total of 1,337 weapons through both manned and unmanned aircraft, according to data collected by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent media outlet.
Data from the Long War Journal — part of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank — and the liberal think tank New America also found the U.S. conducted around 513 strikes in Libya, 43 in Yemen, 14 in Somalia, and 3 in Pakistan in 2016. This data didn't give the exact numbers of weapons used. Regardless, keeping in mind the number of strikes in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, as well as the quantity of weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the total still amounts to more than 26,000 bombs in seven countries in just 2016.
Trump is not the first president who did not get congressional consent to carry out military actions in another country. In 1950, President Harry Truman used his authority to send U.S. troops to defend South Korea along with a U.N. Security Council resolution, but no authority from Congress. In 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ordered military force in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon, and in 1989 President George H.W. Bush directed the invasion of Panama to topple the dictator Manuel Noriega.
According to a National Constitution Center analysis, while the U.S. Constitution gives the president the title of commander in chief of all armed forces, only Congress can declare war. Over the years, presidents have broadly interpreted their roles as commander in chief and often used it to bypass Congress.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to ensure Congress had a role in approving U.S. involvement in any armed conflicts. However, Congress has also passed numerous Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that give the president the ability to carry out limited and clearly defined military actions. In practice, however, these AUMFs have been interpreted broadly to justify all kinds of military actions.
In 2001, Congress passed an AUMF authorizing military actions against "those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11, 2001] attacks against the United States." In 2002, Congress passed another AUMF calling for the use of military force against Iraq. When Obama ordered military intervention in 2011 in Libya without congressional approval, he said his actions did not fall under the War Powers Resolution.
A 2016 analysis by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress found that the Obama administration had continued to use this justification for drone strikes: "Congress initially authorized war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in its 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and the Obama administration continues to rely on that AUMF as congressional authority for ongoing military operations."
The Council for Foreign Relations also evaluated the legality of Obama's drone strikes in 2017. It found that the 2001 AUMF had been "stretched" by the Obama administration to "justify strikes against terror groups that either did not exist on 9/11, or are unaffiliated with al-Qaida. Yet, the AUMF remains the domestic legal underpinning for all U.S. military actions against Islamist terrorists."
A 2016 paper by a pair of Duke and Harvard Law School professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, on "Obama's AUMF Legacy" noted that Obama initially wanted to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but by the end of his presidency it acted as the legal underpinning for his military actions:
Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future.
[…]
For many years, President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to repeal the AUMF and end the AUMF-authorized conflict. By the closing year of his presidency, however, his administration had established the AUMF as the legal foundation for an indefinite conflict against Al Qaeda and associated groups and extended that foundation to cover a significant new conflict against the Islamic State.
In 2014 and 2015, Obama did try to get Congress to pass an updated AUMF for his ongoing war against the Islamic State. In February 2015, he sent Congress a draft AUMF, but disagreements over how it would limit the powers of a future U.S. president, and even Obama, meant the measure stalled.
In 2020, Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF as the legal justification for the Jan. 2, 2020, U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued.
"Afghanistan: Reported US Air and Drone Strikes 2016." TBIJ, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/drone-war/data/get-the-data-a-list-of-us-air-and-drone-strikes-afghanistan-2016. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"America's Counterterrorism Wars." New America, http://newamerica.org/future-security/reports/americas-counterterrorism-wars/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Bradley, Curtis A., and Jack L. Goldsmith. "Obama's AUMF Legacy." The American Journal of International Law, vol. 110, no. 628, 2016, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6661&context=faculty_scholarship. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2014-2021 Airpower Statistics. U.S. Air Force Central Command, 30 Nov. 2021, https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/November%202021%20Airpower%20Summary_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Crowley, Michael, and Edward Wong. "Is the U.S. at War With Iran? What to Know About Trump, Congress and War Powers." The New York Times, 22 June 2025. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/trump-strikes-war-iran.html. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Does the President Need Congress to Approve Military Actions in Iran? | Constitution Center." National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-president-need-congress-to-approve-military-actions-in-iran. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Elsea, Jennifer. "Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces." U.S. Congress, 10 Dec. 2024, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10539. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Evaluating the Obama Administration's Drone Reforms." Council on Foreign Relations, 31 Jan. 2017, https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2017/01/Workshop_Report_Obama_Drone_Reforms_OR.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Fowler, Stephen. "Trump Administration Defends Iranian Strikes as Some Lawmakers Question Its Legality." NPR, 22 June 2025. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441731/iran-strike-congress-reaction-vance-rubio. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Glass , Andrew. "United States Invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989." Politico, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/20/united-states-invades-panama-1989-1067072. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Hegseth, Caine Laud Success of U.S. Strike on Iran Nuke Sites." Department of Defense, 22 June 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4222533/hegseth-caine-laud-success-of-us-strike-on-iran-nuke-sites/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Herb, Jeremy. "Congress War Authorization: Where We Last Left off." CNN, 7 Apr. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/congress-obama-war-authorization. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." U.S. Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Interpretation: Declare War Clause." National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Kheel, Rebecca. "Trump Administration Outlines Legal Justification for Soleimani Strike." The Hill, 14 Feb. 2020, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/483135-trump-administrtion-outlines-legal-justification-for-soleimani-strike/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Liptak, Kevin. "Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites Thrust US into Escalating Middle East Conflict." CNN, 22 June 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/21/politics/trump-iran-air-strikes. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Martin, Kate. "Are U.S. Drone Strikes Legal?" Center for American Progress, 1 Apr. 2016, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Operation Enduring Sentinel Lead Inspector General Quarterly Report to Congress, January 1, 2024—March 31, 2024." Office of Inspector General. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/6845. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Public Law 107–40." U.S. Congress, 18 Sept. 2001, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"US Airstrikes in the Long War." FDD's Long War Journal, https://www.longwarjournal.org/us-airstrikes-in-the-long-war. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"What We Know about US Air Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites." BBC, 23 June 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Who We Are." Operation Inherent Resolve, https://www.inherentresolve.mil/WHO-WE-ARE/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Zenko, Micah and Jennifer Wilson. "How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?" Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-many-bombs-did-united-states-drop-2016. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Iran's Foreign Ministry admits nuclear sites ‘badly damaged' by US strikes
Iran's Foreign Ministry publicly admitted for the first time Wednesday that its nuclear sites were 'badly damaged' by the American bunker-busting bombs. The ministry did not elaborate on the full extent of the damage. However, its admission comes as the White House trashed a leaked, 'low confidence' preliminary intelligence assessment that claimed the strikes were not severe and potentially only set Iran's program back by months. 3 Iran admitted that US bunker-buster bombs 'badly damaged' their nuclear sites. ©2025 Maxar Technologies 3 Aerial view of the damaged Iranian nuclear site in Isfahan. IDF/GPO/SIPA/Shutterstock President Trump has maintained that Iran suffered 'total obliteration' from the bombing over the weekend and was adamant Wednesday that it set Iran back 'basically decades.' 'Israel is doing a report on it now, I understand, and I was told that they said it was total obliteration,' Trump told reporters during the 2025 NATO summit on Wednesday. 3 Night vision image of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber in a hangar. via REUTERS 'You know they have guys that go in there after the hit, and they said it was total obliteration,' went on. 'I believe it was total obliteration.' With Post Wires
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Judge Quotes 'The Simpsons' in Ruling Against Donald Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A U.S. judge quoted from an episode of The Simpsons while ordering the Donald Trump administration to unfreeze billions of dollars in electric vehicle charger funding for 14 states. On Tuesday, District Judge Tana Lin granted a partial injunction to the states which sued the Department of Transportation over blocking the funds, and said that the states would likely succeed in their suit alleging that these were withheld illegally. In her ruling, Lin quoted from the TV show, writing: "In a 1995 episode of The Simpsons, Homer must cut short a tearful goodbye with his long-lost mother after her traveling companions protest that their 'electric van only has minutes of juice left!'" "Some 26 years later, Congress sought to address the phenomenon that has come to be known as 'range anxiety': the unease experienced by electric vehicle ("EV") drivers when they are unsure where the next charging station might be, and whether their car's battery has sufficient charge to get them there," she continued. Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Transportation and The Federal Highway Administration via email for comment on Lin's ruling. Why It Matters Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation suspended the nationwide EV charging program and ordered a halt on new programs until guidance was updated. Sixteen states along with the District of Columbia sued the administration over the decision, arguing that it did not have the authority to withhold funds previously approved by Congress, a claim now handed backing by the Seattle-based court. Lin's ruling also follows further anti-EV actions by the Trump administration. Earlier this month, the president signed several resolutions aimed at dismantling California's efforts to promote the adoption of electric vehicles and phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. What To Know The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program was a federal initiative included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed by then-President Joe Biden in November 2021. The NEVI program was set to allocate $5 billion over five years to various states for the development of a national electric vehicle charging network. According to AP, an estimated $3.3 billion of these funds had already been made available. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport, N.J, Saturday, June 21, 2025. Homer Simpson visits The Empire State Building to celebrate the 30th anniversary of "The Simpsons" on December 17, 2018.... President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport, N.J, Saturday, June 21, 2025. Homer Simpson visits The Empire State Building to celebrate the 30th anniversary of "The Simpsons" on December 17, 2018. More Manuel Balce Ceneta / Noam Galai/AP Photo / Getty Images In February, however, the administration ordered states to stop spending money under the program, and halted new funding for EV charging stations. This led 16 states to sue the administration, arguing that it was illegally withholding the funds and that the freeze had halted some projects mid-progress. On Tuesday, Lin said that the administration had overstepped its constitutional authority, and ordered that funding be released for 14 of the states involved in the lawsuit. However, she denied granting a preliminary injunction for D.C. Minnesota or Vermont, stating that they "did not proffer any evidence … that demonstrates the irreparable harm that would befall them absent injunctive relief." What People Are Saying U.S. District Judge Tana Lin, in her Tuesday ruling, wrote: "Although range anxiety, EV charging stations, and current DOT leadership's policy preferences lurk in the background of this case, the bedrock doctrines of separation of powers and agency accountability, as enshrined in Constitution and statute, are indifferent to subject matter and blind to personality. "When the Executive Branch treads upon the will of the Legislative Branch, and when an administrative agency acts contrary to law, it is the Court's responsibility to remediate the situation and restore the balance of power. Such remediation and restoration are what the Court undertakes herein." California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement following the ruling, said: "The administration cannot dismiss programs illegally, like the bipartisan Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, just so that the President's Big Oil friends can continue basking in record-breaking profits. "We are pleased with today's order blocking the Administration's unconstitutional attempt to do so, and California looks forward to continuing to vigorously defend itself from this executive branch overreach." What Happens Next? Lin's ruling will take effect in seven days, on July 2, before which the Trump administration will be able to file an appeal.
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump says US strike impaired Iran's nukes. What does Pentagon say? Live updates
Trump's comments on the intelligence assessment were made ahead of the meeting with world leaders at a NATO summit. President Donald Trump on Wednesday shrugged off a Pentagon assessment suggesting a U.S. bombing raid may not have severely damaged Iran's nuclear capability, saying Iran's program had been set back "basically decades, because I don't think they'll ever do it again." Iran and Israel were both claiming victory in the short but deadly conflict as the world waited to determine whether a ceasefire would hold. Israeli Prime Miniser Benjamin Netanyahu said his country had achieved the goals of its attacks on Iran by destroying the nation's nuclear program. Trump had said U.S. bombers "obliterated" Iranian nuclear sites when they dropped 14 "bunker-buster'' bombs on three facilities. But a Pentagon intelligence assessment now says the 30,000-pound weapons did not reach deep enough to destroy the underground installations and likely only delayed Iran's nuclear program by a few months. Trump said Wednesday the intelligence was inconclusive. "The intelligence says we don't know. It could've been very severe, that's what the intelligence suggests," Trump told reporters ahead while meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at a NATO summit in the Netherlands. "It was very severe. There was obliteration." Iran says nuclear program still on track In Iran, the Supreme National Security Council declared that the Islamic Republic's military response to the attack forced Israel and its Western supporters to unilaterally halt offensive operations. And Iran's top nuclear official, Mohammad Eslami, told the Mehr News Agency that preparations made ahead of the attack will prevent any hiatus in progress for Iran's nuclear industry. Israel's sweeping assault, which began June 13, targeted military leaders, nuclear scientists, uranium enrichment facilities and Iran's ballistic missile program. The war has been costly. Iranian Health Minister Mohammad Reza Zafarqandi said more than 600 Iranians have been killed by Israeli missiles. Iran's missile attacks in response killed about 30 and wounded thousands in Israel, severely damaging apartment buildings, a university and a hospital, according to the Times of Israel. Trump says ceasefire 'in effect': President scolds Iran, Israel Some Americans fear war's violence could reach US Some residents and tourists in major American cities say they feel uneasy about the possibility of violence breaking out at home. At New York's Penn Station, Catherine Wagoner, a kindergarten teacher from Boston waiting for her train home after visiting friends, told USA TODAY she felt less safe traveling since the attacks in Iran. 'Being in New York feels more of a threat – more of a target,' she said, adding, 'I definitely have a lot of privilege, and I don't feel like I'm necessarily the target, so I can recognize that. But I just have a constant state of anxiety about the state of the world.' Wagoner's feelings were echoed in a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll that surveyed 1,139 U.S. adults nationwide and found that some 79% of respondents said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." Read more here. − Christopher Cann and Michael Collins What nuclear capability does Iran have? The U.S. intelligence community has been consistent: It does not believe Iran has been building a nuclear weapon. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said as much when she testified to Congress about Iran's nuclear program in March. U.S. spy agencies, Gabbard said, 'continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003." Trump and Netanyahu dismissed that assessment. Trump has doubted U.S. intelligence agencies before − for example, over who was responsible for the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi (it was Saudi Arabia). Netanyahu, meanwhile, has been talking about Iran's existential nuclear threat to Israel for as along as he's been in the public eye. Still, U.S. intelligence agencies, Trump, Netanyahu and the United Nations' nuclear watchdog − the International Atomic Energy Agency − agree on the issue of Iran's uranium. All believe Iran has developed a large stockpile, and at a sufficiently enriched level, to sustain a nuclear reaction that could be used in a bomb if it decided to. But how quickly Iran could then "sprint to a nuclear weapon," as Gen. Michael E. Kurilla put it on June 10, is also a matter of dispute, and estimates range from one week to one year. −Kim Hjelmgaard Why did the US strike Iran nuke facilities? Trump ordered the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities − Operation Midnight Hammer − effectively joining a war that Israel started on June 13 when it began bombing Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Israel said it helped the U.S. coordinate and plan the strikes. Trump said all three sites were "totally obliterated." But an independent assessment has not yet been carried out. The International Atomic Energy Agency − the United Nation's nuclear watchdog − released a statement saying that so far it had not detected an increase in "off-site radiation levels," one of the feared consequences of the strikes. Contributing: Reuters
