Rep. Kat Cammack (R‑FL) said Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over military action after recent U.S. strikes in Nigeria, warning that unilateral executive military moves undermine Article I powers and risk unrestrained escalation abroad. On Friday’s Mornings with Maria on the Fox Business Network, Cammack framed the strikes as a necessary warning to extremists in Africa but insisted that Congress must vote to authorize further military operations to prevent unchecked executive action.
Host Cheryl Casone asked Cammack for her reaction to the administration’s recent strikes in Nigeria, noting that President Biden had reportedly consulted the Nigerian government beforehand and that officials there agreed the strikes were the correct course. Casone also asked if Cammack was concerned about the possibility of further military involvement across Africa.
Cammack answered that escalation anywhere in the world is a serious concern, emphasizing that Africa has “been a hotbed for increased radicalism and extremism.” She called the strikes a “shot across the bow” intended to deter extremist groups. But she immediately pivoted to the constitutional issue, underscoring that decisions about war and military engagement fall squarely under Congress’s authority.
“I do think that Congress needs to take the step of declaring, or at least taking the vote to declare, because we don’t want to see more unilateral action out of the administration, whether it’s Republican or Democrat,” Cammack said. Her remarks highlight growing Republican concern that the executive branch is engaging in military operations without clear, formal authorization from the legislative branch, a trend critics say erodes the constitutional separation of powers.
Cammack’s stance aligns with long‑standing conservative and constitutionalist arguments that Congress must be more assertive in exercising its sole authority to declare war. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress that power to prevent the presidency from committing American forces to conflicts without broad legislative oversight. Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised alarms in recent years about the increasing frequency of military actions ordered by presidents without express congressional approval.
By pressing for a formal vote, Cammack is urging lawmakers to confront the underlying issue of executive overreach. Her comments resonate with conservative and faith‑minded Americans who value constitutional governance and are wary of open‑ended military commitments that lack clear objectives or exit strategies.
Cammack’s appeal to Congress also carries strategic significance. A congressional declaration of war or authorization for use of military force would establish clear legal foundations for operations, define objectives, and set boundaries for engagement. Lawmakers who have historically deferred to executive judgment on foreign military matters may now face pressure from constituents and conservative leaders to assert legislative authority.
The timing of Cammack’s remarks, coming amid rising global instability and ongoing threats from extremist networks, underscores the tension between rapid response to security threats and adherence to constitutional processes. Her call for Congressional action reopens a broader debate over who should determine when and how the U.S. engages militarily abroad.
