Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2023-07-27-at-11.39.57-am

Bipartisan effort to claw back war powers from White House launched today

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace and Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern are targeting use of force, emergency declarations, and arms sales.

Reporting | Washington Politics

The bipartisan effort to restore Congress’ constitutional role in issues of war and peace continued today with the introduction of an expansive effort to reign in the executive’s power on a number of national security questions.  

Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) are leading the National Security Reforms and Accountability Act (NSRAA), a wide-ranging initiative that tackles reforms to war powers, arms exports, and national emergencies. 

Lawmakers have looked to restore balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in the recent past in more narrow ways, but the recently-introduced legislation takes on structural reforms across the board. 

"Allowing administration after administration – presidents from both sides of the aisle – to usurp Congressional authority on matters of national security without check is irresponsible," said McGovern in a statement. "The Constitution of the United States is clear: the power to declare war rests solely with the Congress and it is crucial we reassert our body’s power to make the tough decisions about when, where, and how to put American troops in harm’s way.”

"The American people are tired of endless foreign wars, and want to know they have a say via their elected representatives," added Mace. "This important piece of legislation goes a long way to restoring the authority the Founding Fathers gave Congress and ensuring our men and women who volunteer to serve and protect our nation are not needlessly sacrificed.”

A similar bill was introduced by McGovern and then-Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) during the 117th Congress, but the legislation was never taken up for a vote. 

The NSRAA aims to strengthen some of the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act — which requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and, absent Congressional approval, forbids armed forces from being deployed for more than 60 days — by automatically cutting off funding in the absence of a positive vote of Congressional approval.   

The War Powers Act has been invoked once in legislation that passed both chambers of Congress. A bipartisan 2019 bill called for an end to U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen — but it was eventually vetoed by President Donald Trump. This year, members of Congress have unsuccessfully used War Powers Act resolutions to force a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia and Syria.

McGovern and Mace’s bill would require future authorizations of force (AUMFs) to include a clearly defined mission, and clearly defined countries or armed entities against whom the use of force is permitted, along with the automatic end of any future such authorizations after two years. 

Currently, U.S. military operations overseas are justified by broad AUMFs passed more than two decades ago. The Senate voted to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War authorizations earlier this year, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy has reportedly pledged to take up AUMF related legislation on the House floor in the near future. There have also been Congressional attempts to repeal the broader 2002 AUMF, including a recent amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Rep. Dan Bishop, but that law also remains on the books. 

“The NSRAA reflects the lessons learned from the past two decades of forever wars and executive branch overreach...” Heather Brandon-Smith Deputy Director for Foreign Policy at FCNL, told RS. The bill “would ensure that Congress, as the branch most responsible to the American people, is put back in the driver’s seat on matters of war and peace. After more than 20 years of unchecked war, we welcome these much-needed reforms that would restore the constitutional balance of national security powers.” 

The NSRAA would also impose guardrails on what policies could be enacted under the National Emergencies Act and would require Congress to approve the renewal of emergencies after one year and would impose a five-year limit on states of emergency.

National emergencies — of which there are 41 currently in effect, dating back as far as the Jimmy Carter administration — have also been the target of more narrow Congressional action recently, with Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz), and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), all putting forth unsuccessful attempts to end presidential emergency declarations that allow for sanctions against Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this month. 

When it comes to arms sales, the bill would require Congress to actively approve for the sales of air-to-ground munitions, tanks, armored vehicles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and more arms valued at $14 million or more, as well as firearms and ammunition with more than $1 million in value. As of 2019, presidents have approved at least $145 billion worth of weapons sales since 1986, according to the Washington Post. 

“The American people deserve a voice on where, when, and against whom the U.S. wages war, and to whom it sells lethal arms,” said Lora Lumpe, CEO of the Quincy Institute, in a statement. “By requiring a congressional vote on these decisions, this bipartisan bill democratizes foreign policy—ensuring that the people have a say on matters of war and peace through their representatives in Congress.”


United States Congress, Office of Nancy Mace / U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr
Reporting | Washington Politics
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.