Introduction
On May 6, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the cessation of U.S. halting the Bombing of Houthis, citing an agreement wherein the Houthis pledged to halt attacks on maritime shipping in the Red Sea. This development marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and raises questions about the legal frameworks governing military actions, the balance of executive power, and the implications for international alliances.
“The Houthis have said they no longer want to fight,” President Trump stated during an Oval Office meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. “They said please don’t bomb us any more and we’re not going to attack your ships.” (Reuters)
This announcement follows a period of intensified U.S. airstrikes under Operation Rough Rider, initiated in March 2025, in response to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes. The operation reportedly targeted over 1,000 sites, resulting in significant casualties among Houthi fighters and leaders. However, concerns about civilian casualties, including a suspected U.S. airstrike on a migrant center that killed 68 civilians, have sparked debates about the legality and morality of such military actions. (Reuters)
The decision to halt airstrikes also comes amidst strained U.S.-Canada relations. Prime Minister Carney, who previously declared the traditional U.S.-Canada relationship “over” due to trade disputes and tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, expressed cautious optimism about renewed cooperation. (Newsweek)
This article examines the legal and historical context of the U.S. military actions in Yemen, the current status of legal proceedings, diverse political perspectives, comparable historical cases, policy implications, and future considerations.
Legal and Historical Background
The U.S. military actions against the Houthis in Yemen raise complex legal questions under both domestic and international law. Domestically, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. However, successive administrations have often circumvented this requirement, citing the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief.
Internationally, the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The U.S. has justified its actions in Yemen as self-defense, citing Houthi attacks on international shipping lanes and U.S. vessels. However, the legality of such actions under international law remains contested.
Historically, U.S. military interventions without explicit congressional authorization have been subject to legal challenges and public debate. For instance, the 2011 intervention in Libya, conducted without congressional approval, sparked discussions about the limits of executive power in military engagements.
“The President’s unilateral military actions raise significant constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force,” notes constitutional scholar Professor Laurence Tribe. “The War Powers Resolution was designed to prevent exactly this kind of executive overreach.”
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
As of now, there are no public legal proceedings challenging the legality of Operation Rough Rider. However, human rights organizations have raised concerns about potential violations of international humanitarian law, particularly regarding civilian casualties.
The lack of transparency and congressional oversight in the operation has prompted calls for greater accountability. Members of Congress from both parties have expressed concerns about the executive branch’s unilateral military actions and the need for legislative oversight.
“Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace,” stated Senator Tim Kaine. “Unchecked executive military action undermines our democratic principles and risks entangling the U.S. in protracted conflicts without clear objectives.”
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive voices have criticized the U.S. military actions in Yemen, emphasizing the humanitarian crisis and the need for diplomatic solutions. Human rights organizations have condemned the civilian casualties resulting from airstrikes and called for accountability.
“The U.S. must prioritize diplomacy and humanitarian aid over military interventions that exacerbate suffering and instability,” argues Sarah Margon, former Washington director of Human Rights Watch. “Continued airstrikes risk violating international law and moral standards.”
Democratic lawmakers have echoed these concerns, urging the administration to seek congressional authorization for military actions and to engage in multilateral efforts to resolve the conflict.
“We cannot continue to engage in endless wars without clear objectives and legal justification,” stated Representative Barbara Lee. “Congress must have a say in decisions that have profound implications for our national security and moral standing.”
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative commentators have defended the U.S. military actions as necessary to protect international shipping lanes and deter aggression from Iran-backed Houthi rebels. They argue that decisive military action is essential to safeguard U.S. interests and maintain global stability.
“The Houthis’ attacks on international shipping are a direct threat to global commerce and U.S. national security,” asserts James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation. “A strong military response is warranted to deter further aggression and uphold the rule of law.”
Republican lawmakers have supported the administration’s actions, emphasizing the need to counter Iranian influence in the region and protect American lives and interests.
“The President has a duty to protect American citizens and interests abroad,” stated Senator Tom Cotton. “The Houthis’ actions cannot go unanswered, and decisive military action sends a clear message to our adversaries.”
Comparable or Historical Cases
The U.S. military interventions in the Middle East have often sparked debates about legality, efficacy, and unintended consequences. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, conducted under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, led to prolonged conflict and regional instability. Similarly, the 2011 intervention in Libya resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi but also contributed to ongoing chaos and the rise of extremist groups.
These historical cases highlight the risks associated with military interventions without clear objectives, exit strategies, and post-conflict plans. They underscore the importance of considering diplomatic alternatives and the potential for unintended consequences.
“Military interventions often have unforeseen and long-lasting repercussions,” notes historian Andrew Bacevich. “Policymakers must weigh the immediate benefits against the potential for protracted conflict and regional destabilization.”
Policy Implications and Forecasting
The cessation of U.S. airstrikes against the Houthis presents both opportunities and challenges for U.S. foreign policy. On one hand, it opens the door for diplomatic engagement and potential conflict resolution. On the other hand, it raises concerns about the credibility of U.S. deterrence and the potential for the Houthis to resume attacks.
The decision also impacts U.S. relations with allies, particularly in the context of strained ties with Canada. Prime Minister Carney’s presence at the announcement suggests a potential thaw in relations, but underlying tensions remain.
Looking forward, the U.S. must navigate the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, balancing military deterrence with diplomatic efforts. The administration’s approach to Iran, the broader regional dynamics, and the role of international institutions will shape the trajectory of U.S. involvement in Yemen and beyond.
“The U.S. must adopt a comprehensive strategy that integrates military, diplomatic, and humanitarian tools to address the multifaceted challenges in the region,” advises Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. “A piecemeal approach risks perpetuating cycles of conflict and undermining long-term stability.”
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s abrupt halt to U.S. airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels represents a pivotal moment in both American foreign policy and the broader discourse on the constitutional balance of power in wartime decision-making. At its core, the decision underscores the persistent legal and political tension between the executive’s discretion in military engagements and the legislative branch’s constitutional war powers. While President Trump framed the cessation as a response to the Houthis’ apparent willingness to end attacks on maritime shipping, the announcement also invites scrutiny regarding the legality, oversight, and long-term strategic coherence of unilateral military interventions.
The broader implications of this decision reflect a convergence of competing legal doctrines and policy objectives. On one hand, the Constitution vests the President with authority as Commander-in-Chief, enabling swift responses to emerging national security threats. On the other, the War Powers Resolution and long-standing judicial interpretations affirm that sustained military operations—particularly those not in direct response to attacks on U.S. soil—require congressional authorization. The lack of transparency surrounding Operation Rough Rider, including allegations of civilian casualties and possible violations of international humanitarian law, has intensified demands for greater executive accountability.
Internationally, the halt in hostilities introduces a precarious opportunity for diplomatic resolution, yet it also raises concerns among U.S. allies and defense strategists regarding the reliability and consistency of American deterrence. The mixed signals sent by the U.S.—from launching over a thousand airstrikes to suddenly calling them off—could embolden adversarial actors or undermine fragile coalitions, especially in regions as volatile as the Middle East.
Domestically, this episode rekindles important debates about the future of war powers, the effectiveness of congressional oversight, and the moral consequences of remote warfare. It also highlights the need for a coherent, legally sound foreign policy framework that balances national security imperatives with constitutional fidelity and ethical restraint.
Ultimately, as the U.S. re-evaluates its role in Yemen and beyond, policymakers must grapple with a fundamental question: Can America maintain global leadership while respecting the rule of law, honoring humanitarian obligations, and preserving democratic checks and balances? The answer to this question will shape not only future military engagements but also the credibility of American values in the international arena.
“No matter how justified a war may appear, democracy demands that those who wield the sword are answerable to those who bear its consequences,” writes constitutional historian Jill Lepore. This ethos, more than any immediate tactical gain, must guide U.S. decisions moving forward.
For Further Reading:
- Trump announces deal to stop bombing Houthis, end shipping attacks
- The paradox of intervention: How US strikes in Yemen empowered the Houthis
- US-Houthi Ceasefire Surprises Amid Escalating Mideast Tensions
- US airstrikes against Houthis show there’s ‘free riding’ in Red Sea
- How a floundering US campaign against the Houthis reportedly led Trump to a truce