Honestly, nobody can say for sure what President Trump might decide. There’s just a cloud of uncertainty hanging over everything. Yet, as confusion lingers, some familiar questions begin to pop up. What about the council?
We’ve seen a recurring pattern. The President, whether Democrat or Republican, often contemplates the use of military force. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of legislators insists on a vote. The White House typically avoids seeking Congressional approval, leading to a war powers resolution that few members can actually push forward.
And here we go again—Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are advocating for Congress to reassert its role. Even with a history of being National Security Adviser, it feels a bit like Congress can make symbolic moves regarding war powers. However, the likelihood of a significant vote actually granting those powers doesn’t seem very high.
The Constitution bestows the right to declare war upon Congress, but it seems to leave a lot of gray areas. There’s a real tension between this power and the President’s authority to issue military commands as the commander-in-chief. In response to challenges during the Vietnam War, Congress passed a resolution in 1973 aimed at confirming unilateral military actions taken by the President. The law introduced three main checks: it ensures a privileged resolution for military force approval, sets a 60-day withdrawal deadline unless Congress acts, and mandates votes for military engagements.
Since then, every president has effectively ignored that 60-day limit, which was supposed to enforce the resolution. Congress has mostly gone along with this. Even when lawmakers have passed resolutions calling for withdrawal, they haven’t successfully taken back power in over two decades—think Yemen in 2019 and Iran in 2020.
Why has military force approval become so politically problematic? It probably starts with elections. After President Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, which linked his opponent Hillary Clinton to her past Iraq vote in 2002, lawmakers learned that backing a war could lead to long-lasting political repercussions, especially when the outcomes are uncertain.
A stark example of this was in 2013, when action was demanded against Bashar Assad after he used chemical weapons in Syria. Instead of going it alone, Obama turned to Congress for approval, which he ultimately didn’t get due to public opposition. The response from Congress was overwhelming against intervention.
Today, party leaders are still wary of exposing conflicts within their ranks. Neither side seems to have a unified stance, particularly regarding Iran. Some Republicans support military action to assist Israel, while others, including some progressive Democrats, caution against wider military entanglement. This unusual coalition seems intent on keeping those discussions quiet, avoiding any public debates.
The underlying issue is structural. Since the New Deal era, the presidency has become the central hub for U.S. foreign policy, recognized as the leading authority in diplomacy. The idea that 535 members of Congress should have to approve military actions feels increasingly outdated, especially in crisis situations.
More likely than adopting a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress will continue to resort to procedural war power resolutions. These resolutions might create cross-party support and express political views but serve more as speed bumps on the way to military action.
Congress does have the option to try to cut funding for military initiatives, but historically, that hasn’t been very effective. In instances like Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011, Congress didn’t approve military forces but still allowed the President to operate freely without restrictions.
Yet, Congress isn’t entirely powerless. It can shape public opinion, rally bipartisan support, and apply pressure on decision-makers when policies veer off-course. Still, those hoping for a formal vote against military action in Iran might want to temper their expectations. It appears that the days of significant Congressional authority may have passed, with current discussions happening more through procedural tactics than through solid constitutional power.
