Presidents from both parties have increasingly bypassed Congress to launch military operations, fueling a constitutional clash that risks unchecked executive war-making.
At a Glance
- Presidents have repeatedly ordered military strikes without explicit congressional approval since the 1973 War Powers Resolution
- The 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force remain the legal backbone for global military actions
- Recent strikes on Iran reignited bipartisan efforts to curtail presidential war powers
- The War Powers Resolution’s 60-day limit is often circumvented or loosely interpreted
- New legislation faces strong opposition in a divided Congress
How Presidents Sidestep War Powers
For decades, U.S. presidents have relied on broad interpretations of executive authority and outdated authorizations to conduct military operations without new congressional approval. The 1973 War Powers Resolution was designed to check this power, requiring notification within 48 hours of deploying forces and mandating withdrawal after 60 days without congressional consent.
In practice, the law has been frequently sidestepped. Presidents from Reagan (Grenada, Lebanon) to Clinton (Kosovo, Bosnia), Bush (post-9/11 actions), and Obama (Libya, Syria strikes) used a combination of the Constitution’s Commander-in-Chief clause and legacy Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to justify unilateral action.
Today, the 2001 AUMF—passed after 9/11—continues to serve as a sweeping justification for global military activity, underpinning U.S. operations in as many as 85 countries over two decades, according to Congressional Research Service. Legal scholars argue this has effectively rendered the War Powers Resolution toothless.
Iran Strikes Revive Debate
The issue resurfaced sharply this month after U.S. forces launched a high-profile strike on Iranian military assets without prior congressional authorization. The Biden administration cited imminent threats, but bipartisan critics swiftly countered that there was no clear justification for circumventing Congress.
Representative Thomas Massie and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced new measures aimed at repealing outdated AUMFs and restoring legislative oversight. Senators Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders back parallel efforts in the Senate.
“There was no imminent threat,” Massie asserted, highlighting growing unease over the erosion of congressional war powers. Despite broad public support for reining in executive authority, these efforts face an uphill battle in the current partisan Congress.
As debates unfold, the question remains: will Congress muster the resolve to reclaim its constitutional role in deciding when the nation goes to war, or will executive war-making continue unchecked?
