Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1046082265-scaled

Bipartisan majorities want more control for 'the people' on war and arms sales

A new poll finds that across the board, Americans say Congress should have more authority than the president in the use of military force.

Reporting | North America

Bipartisan majorities of citizens want Congress to exert greater control over Washington’s use of military force and sales of U.S. arms to foreign nations, according to a new public-opinion poll released Tuesday by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

Bipartisan majorities support a proposal contained in several pending bills that would automatically cut off funding for any military operation unilaterally initiated by the president after 60 days unless Congress acts to approve it, according to the survey, which noted that the nearly 50-year-old War Powers Act currently requires a super-majority in each house of Congress to override a presidential veto. 

Fifty-three percent of self-identified Republicans, 62 percent of self-identified Democrats, and 58 percent of Independents said they support the proposal.

The poll, which was conducted online from Jan 27 to Feb 28 with a nationally representative sample of 2,702 registered voters, also found that bipartisan majorities favor repealing the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, that was hurriedly passed after the 9/11 attacks and that authorized the president to use military force against individuals or organizations involved in the attacks and those who aided them. Fifty-nine percent of all respondents said they favored repeal, including 65 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of Independents.

Similar percentages of respondents (56 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Democrats, and 61 percent of Independents) said they favor requiring Congress to actively approve arms sales to foreign nations of more than $14 million. (A 1976 law currently in effect established that threshold.) The proposal, which is based on pending legislation introduced in the Senate by Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and in the House of Representatives by Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), would give Congress the power to stop arms sales with a simple majority that would not be subject, as they are now, to a veto by the president. 

If enacted, their bills would likely put into much greater question the future of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates whose war in Yemen has proved extremely controversial with lawmakers. Until now, Congress has never succeeded in halting arms sales approved by the executive branch. 

The survey’s findings do not reflect major changes in attitudes towards the use of U.S. military force or arms sales in recent decades, according to Steven Kull, the director of Maryland’s Program, who has specialized in polling and assessing public opinion on foreign policy, including identifying common ground between the two major parties on the subject, for more than 25 years.

“We have been consistently finding bipartisan majority support for giving Congress greater say over the use of military force and arms sales,” he said. "It's not that the public is so enthusiastic about Congress; they see a lot of problems with the way Congress operates. But they do believe in the Founders’ ideas of checks and balances and they do believe that a decision as significant as using military force shouldn’t be left to the president alone. Ultimately, the public would like the people to be consulted on these decisions, and, while they don’t see Congress as being a mirror of the public, it’s still an institution that can offset the president if the president got too far out of line with the public," he told ResponsibleStatecraft.

The new poll is unusual in its methodology in that it attempts to take respondents through a “policymaking simulation” by giving them a briefing on policy options that are under consideration, presenting strongly stated arguments both for and against each option, and only then recording their answers. The entire text of the survey was reviewed by experts to ensure that the briefings were accurate and balanced and the arguments presented were the strongest to be made. 

Respondents were also asked which arguments that were presented were most compelling.

The questionnaire and its results, broken down not only by party, but also by the respondent’s intensity of identification with the party, can be viewed here, while readers can review the policymaking simulation here.

Not only did majorities in both parties and independents favor enhancing Congressional powers vis-à-vis military operations and arms sales, but majorities in various demographic groups, including whites, blacks, and Hispanics; men and women; and all age groups, income categories and levels of education agreed. Among respondents who identified as “very red” and “very blue” there were no significant differences on either enhancing Congress’ war powers (59 percent to 62 percent, respectively) or on arms sales (70 to 70 percent). The most significant difference was on repealing the 2001 AUMF — 55 percent of Republicans who described themselves as “very red” supported repeal compared to 66 percent of “very blue” Democrats.

The survey’s margin of error is +/- 1.9%.


Photo: Orhan Cam via shutterstock.com
Reporting | North America
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

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.