Follow us on social

Us-capitol-scaled

Democrats and Republicans line up to invoke their war powers on Ukraine

Lawmakers warn against Biden sending US troops or engaging in pre-emptive strikes without Congressional authorization.

Europe

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.


(shutterstock/trekandshoot)
Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.