Amid Russia’s escalation in Ukraine, a bipartisan group of 43 Members of Congress sent a letter to the Biden Administration Tuesday to “reassert the war powers vested in Congress under the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.”
Though the Biden Administration has made clear it won't be sending U.S. combat troops to Ukraine, the intent of the letter is to nip any effort to change this policy without Congressional authorization in the bud.
The authors, Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), write that “if the ongoing situation compels you to introduce the brave men and women of our military into Ukraine, their lives would inherently be put at risk if Russia chooses to invade. Therefore we ask that your decisions comport with the Constitution and our nation’s laws by consulting with Congress to receive authorization before any such deployment.”
On February 12, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered 160 Florida National Guardsmen out of Ukraine — the only known American troops still there. If the Biden Administration sends any U.S. military personnel back into the country, the lawmakers warn that Congress “stands ready to deliberate over the potentially monumental implications of such scenarios.”
The lawmakers cite the War Powers Resolution, which would “clearly require congressional authorization before the President may command U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities.” The authors note this would include preemptive strikes, which had raised concerns among some of the letter's signatories after Biden’s use of airstrikes in Syria a year ago. Though previous attempts to rein in the Executive’s war powers have been hamstrung, support for a re-assertion of congressional authorities has grown. The wide-ranging list of signatories includes representatives Peter Meijer (R-Mich), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a long-time advocate of war powers reform.
Separately, DeFazio told Politico that he is calling on President Biden to “ignore the warmongers” already calling for confrontation with Russia. This isn’t hypothetical, either — the same day the letter was sent, former National Security Advisor John Bolton gave a television appearance arguing that Biden must “swiftly take aggressive action against Putin.”
The letter concludes by affirming that “the American people, through their representatives in Congress, deserve to have a say before U.S. troops are placed in harm’s way or the U.S. becomes involved in yet another conflict.” Only 13 percent of Americans polled think that sending soldiers to Ukraine to fight Russian soldiers is a good idea. Opposition to direct military engagement reflects the will of the American people.
Nick Cleveland-Stout is a Junior Research Fellow in the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute. Previously, Nick conducted research on U.S.-Brazil relations as a 2023 Fulbright fellow at the Federal University of Santa Catarina.
Top photo credit: U.S. President Joe Biden walks accompanied by U.S. first lady Jill Biden after delivering remarks on what he calls the "continued battle for the Soul of the Nation" in front of Independence Hall at Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, U.S., September 1, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Joe Biden’s place in history is as the man under whom the liberal international order unraveled.
America has suffered bouts of inflation before, and while Biden’s domestic failures will be remembered, they will not stand out as singular. In foreign policy, however, Biden has written the end of a chapter not only in America’s story but in the world’s as well.
Far from representing “hope and change,” the slogan on which he and Barack Obama were elected in 2008, Biden has personified the hopelessness and stagnation of the West’s post-Cold War foreign policy.
In 2008 voters demanded something new and trusted Obama’s ticket to deliver it. The regime-change projects of the “Global War on Terror” under George W. Bush had been sold to the public as a “cakewalk” and a liberation of foreign populations who would greet our soldiers with flowers. Seven years into the Afghan War and after five in Iraq, it was clear that Bush and those who followed him had no way out of these conflicts, which were being fought not in order to be won — since victory could hardly even be defined — but simply to postpone defeat.
These were open-ended “forever wars.” Obama, with Biden by his side, was handed a mandate to end them and chart a different course. They failed to do so and instead maintained the disastrous direction that had been set in the early 1990s.
The failure of the post-Cold War presidents
George H.W. Bush had never really been able to end the 1991 Gulf War, which continued under Bill Clinton with the enforcement of no-fly zones and sanctions, as Washington entertained a series of neoconservative dreams and schemes for regime change in Iraq.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, then, was a drastic escalation of a war that had already been underway. Yet once Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the war still didn’t end. Washington’s aims of nation-building, regional transformation, and promoting democracy and liberalism were so ill-defined and unrealistic that even a supposedly successful war could only be a prelude to further conflict.
Iraq was a clear symbol of how far American policy had gone awry, but the same mentality of doubling-down on misjudged commitments was to be seen on a grander scale, too. After each wave of NATO expansion, for example, Russia became more rather than less threatening. If the purpose of NATO expansion was to make Europe more secure, the contrast between the security environment of 1992 and that of 2025 delivers a damning verdict — all the more so when contrasted with the success a more limited NATO enjoyed in checking the Soviet Union until its demise.
As if on autopilot, and heedless of results, America’s post-Cold War presidents and the Washington foreign-policy “Blob” pursued a comprehensive neoliberal (and neoconservative) agenda, which included expanding international institutions, promoting global economic integration, castigating nationalist movements of all sorts, deploying U.S. military forces as police and social workers in trouble spots anywhere and everywhere, and fostering regime change by any means necessary in certain targeted countries. All this required not only the continuation but the amplification of America’s Cold War intelligence and surveillance apparatus.
As a senator, Biden marched in step with Washington’s consensus, with a few exceptions that put his capacity for independent thought to the test. He voted against authorizing the 1991 Gulf War, for example, but enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq in the policy debates of 2002 and 2003. He then voiced opposition in 2006 to the “surge” of additional troops into Iraq.
The most straightforward explanation for these swerves is that Biden was merely playing politics: he’d first run for president in 1988, after all, and opposing Bush in 1991 may have seemed like a smart move ahead of a future bid for the White House; in contrast, opposing the second Bush’s plans for a new war in the years right after 9/11 would have been politically costly. By 2006, the political logic had changed again, and a would-be contender for the 2008 Democratic nomination — which Biden did indeed try for — would have been wise to position himself as relatively anti-war.
That was, of course, the cycle when Obama, who did not support the Iraq War, defeated the hawkish Hillary Clinton (and the “triangulating” Biden) for the Democratic nomination. Biden was then seen by the political establishment as a vice presidential pick who would balance the ticket — giving the inexperienced, seemingly idealist Obama a long-serving figure as a running mate, one trusted by Washington’s foreign-policy elites in a way the newcomer from Illinois was not.
They need not have worried: Obama did withdraw troops from Iraq, but in many other respects he maintained the direction of U.S. foreign policy that had been set in the early 1990s. He kept the system in place, even as he opened relations with Iran and Cuba.
Just how little Obama changed his party — let alone Washington — was showcased by the fact that his successor as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee was the very Iraq War supporter he had beaten in 2008. Hillary Clinton, not hope or change, was Barack Obama’s legacy.
The beginning of the end of (this) history
After Clinton lost in 2016 to a Republican outsider, Donald Trump, the Democratic Party and Washington’s foreign-policy elites had only one place left to turn. Joe Biden was a symbol of politics past, but that’s exactly what Washington wanted: a return to what had been considered normal since the 1990s. Biden and Obama have together played a role as America’s Gorbachev — leaders that insiders hoped would allow just enough change to keep the status quo standing.
But like Gorbachev, Biden instead presided over its collapse.
Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, then pursued the same strategic vision that had failed there in Ukraine. There was never a realistic definition of victory in Afghanistan, and Biden had none for Ukraine. Instead of an obtainable goal, in both conflicts Washington elites promoted idealistic dreams: a democratic and liberal Afghanistan, a Ukraine with Crimea restored and NATO membership, Russia too weak and frightened to cause trouble for anyone.
Biden involved America in a new open-ended war, and his policies were perverse even on their own terms. If American support was meant to win the war for Ukraine, or at least provide maximum leverage, then providing the utmost aid up front would have been the logical thing to do.
Instead, Biden followed a pattern of incremental escalation, giving Ukraine more powerful arms and more leeway to use them only as Ukraine weakened — as if the administration’s conscious aim was to protract the war as long as possible, no matter the cost in Ukrainian lives or the danger of the conflict taking a nuclear turn.
And while Biden was prolonging one war, another erupted in the Middle East, with Hamas’s savage attack on Israel and Israel’s relentless, far-ranging response. In this conflict too, Biden’s administration was at war with itself, lecturing Israel while also arming Israel and exerting no effective influence. A deployment of American forces to a “pier” in Gaza for humanitarian purposes — soldiers as social workers again — was predictably useless but thankfully brief, ending before Americans in uniform could die in a warzone doing everything but fighting.
Biden himself is senescent, but so, more importantly, is the worldview he represents. From the George H.W. Bush and Clinton years through the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, and then again with Biden in the White House, Washington has had one way of operating, attempting to engineer a universal system and preferring to prolong conflicts indefinitely rather than admit idealistic aims cannot be realized.
When Donald Trump attempted to shift away from a liberal ideological foreign policy toward a more realistic and negotiation-ready one, the media and official Washington went to extraordinary lengths to stop him. In his first term, Trump’s foreign policy was frustrated from within his administration by unelected officials, and even presidential appointees, who sought to prevent any deviation from “the Blob’s” prescribed path.
But last November’s election gave America’s voters a simple choice, pitting Trump and his foreign policy against a unified establishment, with Kamala Harris having the support not only of liberal Democrats but also neoconservative Republicans like Liz Cheney. Americans chose Trump in greater numbers than ever before, handing him a victory in every swing state.
Both at the ballot box and in the disastrous record of the Biden administration, the old order was put to its final tests and failed. Biden is the epitaph to the epoch of neoconservatism and neoliberalism that defined American policy for decades and that lost the peace after the Cold War.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Diplomacy Watch: Trump's 'gotta make a deal' on Ukraine
Diplomacy Watch: Trump's 'gotta make a deal' on Ukraine
Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. secretary of state said this week that he wants the war between Ukraine and Russia to end.
“It is important for everyone to be realistic: there will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by Ukrainians,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. “There is no way Russia takes all of Ukraine.”
He added that “there's no way Ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion.”
He also said sending American aid to Ukraine “for however long it takes” is “not a realistic or prudent position,” sentiment that echoes what Trump has said.
Trump had previously promised to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office, but his incoming Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, later amended that timeline to 100 days.
The establishment consensus in the U.S. and Europe on the Ukraine war has slowly evolved as the conflict moves increasingly toward Russia’s favor.
“We need a cease-fire line, and of course ideally this (the Ukrainian part) should include all areas currently under Russian control. But we see that this may not be realistically achievable in the immediate future,” former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in December. He added, “if the cease-fire line means that Russia continues to control all occupied territories, this does not mean that Ukraine has to give up the territory forever.”
Ukrainian officials have also reportedly been discussing the option of allowing for a ceasefire, with Russia still controlling part of Ukraine, although not officially or legally. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy even admitted, "if we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control. That’s what we need to do fast. And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.”
During his hearing this week, Rubio emphasized this growing emphasis on diplomacy over a complete Ukrainian victory, saying that ending the war will not “be an easy endeavor… but it's going to require bold diplomacy, and my hope is that it can begin with some ceasefire.”
“Rubio's remarks reflect a pragmatic, constructive approach toward ending the Ukraine war — one that, encouragingly, the administration seems intent on institutionalizing throughout the foreign policy/national security bureaucracy,” said Quincy Institute research fellow Mark Episkopos. “The upcoming peace talks will demand an all hands on deck approach across the agencies if they are to succeed, and Rubio, as the nation's chief diplomat, is poised to play a major role in this difficult but necessary process.”
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Moscow accused Washington of assisting in attempting to sabotage the TurkStream pipeline, the only remaining pipeline that brings Russian gas into Europe. Russian Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the attack “energy terrorism”
The attack was thwarted, according to Al Jazeera, as the pipeline only suffered minor damage. Ukraine has thus far rejected claims of its involvement in the attempted attack.
This comes at a time when Ukraine has halted gas transits from Russia to Europe sparking a war of words and potentially an energy crisis this winter, wrote Stavroula Pabst in Responsible Statecraft this week. Despite claims from Zelenskyy that the gas transit halt was “one of Moscow’s greatest defeats,” the rest of Europe seems to be bearing the brunt of the consequences, facing high energy prices and outages in some countries.
The New York Timesreported on Monday that Ukraine launched a large drone barrage deep into Russian territory. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, more than 140 drones were launched from Ukraine, and U.S. and UK-made ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles were included in the attack. The strikes were in three Russian regions, with some hitting over 700 miles into Russian territory. Industrial and military sites were reportedly damaged, with no reported casualties.
Russia responded the next day by launching dozens of missiles at Ukraine’s energy grid. President Zelenskyy responded to the attacks on social media, “It’s the middle of winter, and the target for the Russians remains unchanged: our energy infrastructure. Among their objectives were gas and energy facilities that sustain normal life for our people.”
There was reported damage but no casualties.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer says that he will deliver new mobile air defense systems and “more support to Ukraine than ever before,” according to The Guardian. This announcement is part of a 100-year partnership agreement between the two nations, meant to secure previously promised aid in addition to further military assistance under the shadow of Trump’s return to the White House. The deal, which also includes health care and agriculture partnerships, must be approved by the British parliament in the coming weeks.
From this week’s State Department briefing on 01/15
A journalist asked spokesperson Matthew Miller if the United States was considering designating Russia as a state sponsor of terror. Miller indicated that the U.S. had determined that the sanctions already in place were more effective. “If you look at the combined regime that we have put into place – sanctions and export controls – we determined that that would have more of an impact than a state sponsor of terrorism designation.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: President Joe Biden on the White House Lawn, July 14, 2023. (Shutterstock/Salma Bashir)
Joe Bidendelivered his foreign policy farewell address Monday at the State Department. The speech was largely a celebration of his own (perceived) accomplishments — all the things he wants to be remembered by as a foreign policy president. One of them is enacting a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private weapons companies:
“We’ve significantly strengthened the defense industrial base [read: arms industry], investing almost $1.3 trillion in procurement and research and development. In real dollars, that’s more than America did in any four year period during the Cold War.”
Foreign policy for the one percent
The type of direct, trillion-dollar-plus government investment Biden promised for climate and social welfare only happened for arms companies. The amount Biden just bragged about giving to the weapons industry is about $540 billion more than the combined value of all the projects announced under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act (as of Jan. 10: $756,247,845,330).
The combined effect of Biden’s flagship domestic accomplishments isn’t particularly climate-friendly, either. For example, over 40% of the funding in the infrastructure law — often marketed as a climate bill — is exclusively for highways, roads, and bridges. That’s not just not green, that’s anti-green. Biden described the climate crisis as “the single greatest existential threat to humanity” in yesterday’s speech, but it definitely wasn’t budgeted like one during his administration.
At least there are more robust climate programs now than there were in 2020. The same can’t be said for social welfare — the U.S. social safety net is considerably weaker now than it was when Biden entered office. You might be thinking “but the pandemic assistance Biden inherited was intended to be temporary,” which is true. Also true: the purpose of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan was to make the bulk of those programs permanent and establish several new ones.
It was never enacted. In 2021, Biden abandoned the strategy needed to overcome the challenge posed by the GOP and a couple recalcitrant Democrats and pass the social spending plan. In early 2022, Biden ditched the trillion-dollar-plus welfare agenda he campaigned on entirely and rebranded himself as a foreign policy president. From that point on, pandemic assistance was nolonger something Biden sought to expand or preserve; in fact, the more of those programs that expired, the more he could brag about reducing the deficit. Ending that assistance during a historic bout of inflation devastated the working class. Many people lost their homes because of it.
The Pentagon budget was exempt from Biden’s deficit reduction regime. Little wonder — it takes serious cash to implement a foreign policy as bellicose and destructive as Biden’s. As key social welfare provisions expired or were eliminated, military spending soared. This is not the hallmark of a “foreign policy for the middle class” and it’s definitely not one for the working class.
The beneficiaries of Biden’s foreign policy are part of a much more exclusive group. Here are a few of them:
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.