Congress Moves To Reclaim Its War Powers
For the past 20 years, presidents have been able to do anything with the U.S. military anywhere in the world without being held accountable at home.
In mid-July, a proposed a new bill that, if passed, would dramatically shift the relative amount of power .
Whether this bill passes as is, or with significant changes, or not at all, its proposal signals an effort by lawmakers to reclaim power over military action and spending that Congress has gradually surrendered over decades. It also puts pressure on presidents to evaluate their foreign policy objectives more clearly, to determine whether military action is, in fact, appropriate and justified.
As I鈥檝e demonstrated in , even though the attempted to constrain presidential power after the disasters of the Vietnam War, it that presidents have exploited to act unilaterally. For example, it allows presidents to engage in military operations without congressional approval for up to 90 days.
As a result of this shift from legislative oversight to presidential control, and administrations from both parties enjoy a significant amount of control over whether the U.S. calls in the armed forces to address developments overseas.
Setting New Standards
This bill would end that loophole, requiring presidents to explain their actions more clearly to Congress and the public. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidents have attempted to circumvent oversight and restraints from Congress by citing vague concerns like when launching military operations. But they haven鈥檛 typically given Congress more concrete information about the nature of the operation or its expected duration.
The new bill sets out a clear definition of which military activities need to be reported to Congress, and how quickly. This is especially important given the ambiguities that prior administrations have exploited. In 2011, a State Department lawyer argued that because there were no ground troops involved. By that logic, any future president could carry out an indefinite bombing campaign with no congressional oversight.
The bill would also require the president to provide an estimated cost of the operation and describe the mission鈥檚 objectives 鈥 both of which could help Congress determine whether a military operation had .
Executive Power Grows
Before the Pearl Harbor attack forced the U.S. into World War II, Congress had , from joining Britain, Australia and other nations in battle.
But in the wake of the attack, Congress began giving the president more control over the military, for fear of being .
After World War II ended, unlike in previous eras, , largely by declining to rein in presidential actions that overstepped into congressional power.
Congress never authorized the war in Korea; Harry Truman used a as legal justification. Congress鈥 vote explicitly opposing the invasion of Cambodia . Even after the Cold War, Bill Clinton regularly acted unilaterally to or .
After 9/11, Congress gave up more of its power much faster. A week after those attacks, Congress passed a sweeping , giving the president permission to 鈥 against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.鈥
In a authorization, Congress went even farther, allowing the president to 鈥渦se the Armed Forces 鈥 in order to defend national security鈥 and 鈥渆nforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.鈥
In the two decades since their passage, four presidents have used those authorizations to justify all manner of military action, from of terrorists to the , which continues to this day. This approach on the control of military affairs exercised by the president.
Threats Of War
The Biden administration has called for , saying the powers granted in 2001 and 2002 were too broad and invite abuse by power-hungry presidents.
And yet Biden has said he to launch attacks in Syria in February and June, saying he was doing so to defend U.S. forces. In mid-July, Biden used the authorizations鈥 power to against fundamentalist al-Shabab fighters.
But perhaps the most frightening use of these broad authorities was in January 2020, when President Donald Trump used the 2002 authorization to justify a , Major General Qassim Soleimani, without consulting Congress or , even to this day.
The killing of Soleimani, who held a position in Iran equivalent to the , was described by the Trump administration only as 鈥.鈥 Trump鈥檚 subsequent promises that Iran would 鈥溾 have a nuclear weapon were also backed up by the idea that Congress had effectively authorized him to take military action against Iran鈥檚 nuclear program.
Tensions 鈥 and fears of war 鈥 , when Iran responded with , and to American service members. But Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei has continued to vow to , leaving open the possibility of an Iranian attack at any time. Under the current legal structure, a U.S. response to that could come without congressional notification or approval.
The current congressional effort is noteworthy because it seeks to make presidents answerable to Congress for a wider range of military action, and to end the broad and sweeping power of the 2001 and 2002 authorizations that have effectively let presidents do anything with the U.S. military anywhere in the world without being held accountable at home.
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
