Latest news with #WarPowersResolutionof1973
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Presidents testing limits Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. The U.N. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.'
USA Today
17 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Could this 50-year-old law block Trump's actions in Iran?
President Donald Trump's decision to order U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran June 22, sparked immediate questions from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle whether he had acted within his authority. Under Trump's direction, the U.S. effectively joins a 10-day-old war, initiated when Israel began bombing Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure. The president has said previously he did not want to get involved in conflict in the Middle East but that "that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon." Some lawmakers, including staunch conservatives and prominent progressives, are calling the move a breach of the Constitution. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, wrote in a post on X. The Constitution puts the power to declare war in Congress' hands, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the president notifies Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limits the deployment of armed forces beyond 90 days, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. Asked during Pentagon press conference June 22 when Congress was made aware of the strikes, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth asserted, "They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, responded to Trump's social media boast about the attack in Iran with the statement, "This is not Constitutional." Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California filed a measure on June 17 that is based on the War Powers Act and seeks to block "unauthorized hostilities" in Iran. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a statement. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk." Some of Trump's strongest supporters have also cautioned against conflict abroad. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote in a post shortly before the U.S. bombings. Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY
USA Today
21 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran.
If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else would allow him to act. Shortly before 8 p.m. ET on June 21, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear program sites, including the difficult to penetrate Fordow enrichment facility. After days of deliberation, Trump decided that the only way to ensure Iran could not obtain nuclear weapons was through U.S. military action. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was strategically the right move and a just action. Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and this attack appears to have prevented that in the near term. However, there is another important question: Was the U.S. attack constitutional? Opinion: Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran. Did Congress approve Iran bombing? Can Trump legally strike without it? There has been much debate surrounding the question of whether the president can act militarily without Congress' approval. House members on both sides of the aisle have indicated they think the president needs congressional approval. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, posted on X immediately after Trump announced the strike. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, stated on X. It is true that the power to declare war belongs to Congress, but that fact is muddied by legislation governing the president's authority. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying American troops if a formal declaration of war has not already been declared. The resolution also requires that the president withdraw any forces deployed in a conflict within 60 days if Congress has not formally declared war. The law was intended as a constriction of presidents' authority to start a war. Yet, in practice it has done the opposite. Rather than using military action simply to respond to an imminent attack, presidents have read the statute as a license to act for 60 days without congressional approval. Another view: Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion There is a cautious balance in the war powers between the president and Congress. The president is the commander in chief, and the job requires him to deal with immediate threats. Congress is a slow moving body, and cannot possibly react to imminent national defense threats. Yet, war authority lies with Congress, and the president would need congressional approval to launch a massive ground war in a foreign nation, both practically and constitutionally. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, but it has passed resolutions authorizing force during more recent conflicts. Trump likely had authority to strike Iran Trump probably has the facts on his side in this instance. Iran has previously threatened to attack the United States, and it was rapidly approaching the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, according to Israeli intelligence. If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else, short of an actual invasion of the homeland, would allow for him to act. Iran has been attacking American ships through their proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. America has responded with air strikes against them. Striking against Iran directly is no different. History also is on Trump's side. President Barack Obama, to cite just one example, acted in the same way by ordering American military action in Libya. Other experts have pointed out that Iran's harboring of fugitives involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks opens up a different path for congressional approval. The president has the authority to act against nations harboring terrorists who were involved in the largest terror attacks ever launched on American soil. Trump's bombing of Iran is not out of line with the actions of past presidents, and it fits within the president's authority to act against imminent threats. While Trump would need congressional approval to launch a prolonged armed conflict against Iran, he has history and the facts on his side in this case. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Seven GOP senators sign onto bill to check Trump's trade authority
(The Hill) – Seven Republican senators, including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Senate's president pro tempore, and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former Senate Republican leader, have signed onto a bipartisan bill that would require Congress to approve President Trump's steep tariffs on trading partners. Grassley and McConnell have joined five other Republicans, Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), in supporting the Trade Review Act of 2025. The legislation would limit Trump's ability to impose unilateral tariffs without the approval of Congress. It would require the president to notify Congress of the imposition of new tariffs and increased tariffs within 28 hours and provide an explanation of the reasoning for the action. California town sees third death from rare virus It would also require the administration to provide an assessment of the potential impact of imposing or increasing the duty on U.S. businesses and consumers. More critically, it would require that new tariffs sunset after 60 days unless Congress passes a joint resolution approving them. And it provides a pathway for Congress to cancel tariffs before the 60-day period expires by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. Trump has already threatened to veto the bill. Grassley, the lead co-sponsor, said it's time for Congress to reassert its authority on trade and tariffs. 'For too long, Congress has delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch. Building on my previous efforts as Finance Committee Chairman, I'm joining Sen. [Maria] Cantwell [R-Wash.] to introduce the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025 to reassert Congress' constitutional role and ensure Congress has a voice in trade policy,' Grassley said in a statement. The Democratic cosponsors of the bill are Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). The legislation is modeled on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which gives Congress express authority to limit a president's ability to initiate or escalate foreign military actions. The administration stated on Monday that it 'strongly opposes' the bill, which would require congressional approval for nearly every tariff increase. In a statement of administration policy, the White House budget office said the bill 'would severely constrain the president's ability to use authorities long recognized by Congress and upheld by the courts to respond to national emergencies and foreign threats. Trump last week announced reciprocal tariffs on more than 180 countries and territories by invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
