Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.