Where is the U.S. fighting now?
The U.S. is currently conducting military
operations in at least seven countries.
In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq,
American forces are involved in conflicts
in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Niger, and
Libya. Most of these campaigns are being
carried out under the 2001 Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which
Congress passed just a week after the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 60-word
resolution granted the president sweeping
powers to use force against any nation,
organization, or person who aided in the
attacks. That was understood to include
Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network al
Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Constitution
gives Congress the sole power to “declare war,” but since 2001,
presidents have repeatedly used the AUMF to justify military oper-
ations around the globe. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently
suggested President Trump had the authority to unilaterally order
a war against Iran because of the AUMF.Can Trump do that?
Legally, it’s a big stretch. Pompeo has told Congress that Iran has
“very real” ties with al Qaida. Intelligence analysts, however, are
highly skeptical. Although Tehran allowed al Qaida operatives
to remain within the country decades ago, there is no evidence
of active collaboration between Iran’s Shiite rulers and Sunni-
dominated al Qaida. So, the Trump administration’s trial balloon
on Iran has alarmed members of both parties in Congress. “We
don’t want to be in forever wars in the absence of robust debate
and approval by the Congress,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.),
usually one of Trump’s loudest champions.How has the AUMF been used?
Presidents Bush and Obama invoked the AUMF at least 37 times
for military actions in 14 countries and at
sea. President Obama invoked it to strike
ISIS in the Middle East and al- Shabab in
East Africa—terrorist groups that didn’t
exist on Sept. 11, 2001. Obama adminis-
tration lawyers argued that those groups
were “associated forces” of al Qaida, so
the law still applied. But even before the
AUMF, American presidents had steadily
expanded their war powers over the
last century.Through what authority?
Through their role as commander
in chief of the military. The Framers
acknowledged that the president should
be able to order a military response to
an emergency, such as a foreign attack
on the U.S., without a formal declara-
tion of war. American presidents have
steadily expanded the definition of
“emergency”; as a result, the U.S. has
had only five declared wars in its his-
tory, the last of which was World War II.President Truman didn’t seek congres-
sional approval for the Korean War—
which lasted for three years and cost the
lives of 40,000 Americans—by describ-
ing it as a “police action” under United
Nations rules. The small American pres-
ence in South Vietnam metastasized into
a full-blown war after Congress passed
the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution,
authorizing the president “to promote
the maintenance of international peace
and security in southeast Asia.” The
undeclared war lasted until 1975, kill-
ing more than 58,000 Americans and
more than 1.3 million people altogether.Can Congress take its power back?
It has tried. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution,
which required the president to seek congressional approval for
any conflicts lasting more than 60 days. Presidents have mostly
just ignored it. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush,
and Bill Clinton all used loose interpretations of “national emer-
gency” to justify interventions in conflicts in Lebanon, Grenada,
Panama, Somalia, and Bosnia. President Obama argued that the
War Powers Resolution didn’t apply to airstrikes in Libya because
they wouldn’t involve ground troops or the “sustained fighting or
active exchanges of fire.” The Obama and Trump administrations
have used a similar rationale to justify supporting Saudi Arabia’s
brutal campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Trump used the
same legal framework for airstrikes on Bashar al-Assad’s regime in
Syria last year.Why doesn’t Congress object?
It often does, but it’s nearly impossible to rein in the presi-
dent without overwhelming, veto-proof congressional majori-
ties. Congress passed a bipartisan bill in April demanding that
President Trump remove all troops involved in “hostilities” in
Yemen, but the president simply
vetoed it. The Democratic-controlled
House passed a defense-spending bill
last week that would end funding
for Saudi forces in Yemen as well as
force the president to seek congres-
sional approval for striking Iran, but
the same bill is unlikely to pass the
Republican-controlled Senate. In many
cases, Congress has actually preferred
to let the president take the lead on
military action abroad. When President
Obama asked Congress in 2013 to
authorize military strikes against Syria
in retaliation for chemical weapons
attacks against civilians, the Senate
refused even to hold a vote. “Taking
a public stand on the use of force can
be risky for members of Congress,”
says Elizabeth N. Saunders, a politi-
cal science professor at Georgetown
University. If a war goes bad, she
says, the president is usually blamed.
“Congress may like it that way.”Briefing NEWS^11
President Johnson signing the Gulf of Tonkin resolutionPresidential war powers
Ge
tty
What the Founders thought
The Constitution’s Framers very deliberately
gave Congress the power to declare war. The
Founders feared turning the president into an
elected monarch, with the kingly power to wage
war on a whim. Keeping the decision out of
one person’s hands, they believed, would also
make war less likely. Virginian George Mason
spoke for many delegates to the Constitutional
Convention when he argued that the executive
branch could not be “safely trusted” with the
power to start wars, and he favored “clogging
rather than facilitating war.” However, the del-
egates ultimately decided to use the wording
“declare war” instead of “make war” to avoid
tying the president’s hands in an emergency.
“The Constitution supposes, what the history of
all governments demonstrates, that the execu-
tive is the branch of power most interested in
war and most prone to it,” James Madison
wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1798. “It has
accordingly with studied care vested the ques-
tion of war in the legislature.”Like President Obama before him, Trump has claimed he can wage war without Congress’ approval. Is that legally true?