Congress and the president both have extensive authorities in foreign policy.
The Constitution gives Congress numerous explicit powers, among them the power to
declare war, provide for a common defense, raise and support armies,
the power over foreign commerce. In addition, the Senate has explicit authority to approve the
nominations of all Cabinet officers, all ambassadorial appointments,
all senior military officials. Beyond that Congress has the power to
appropriate funds. It has a general power to oversee the operation of the government.
The president also has extensive powers in foreign affairs,
though if you read the Constitution, they're fewer in number.
The president's responsible for nominating all cabinet officers, all ambassadors.
The president also has the authority to negotiate treaties, subject to the advice
and the consent of the Senate. There are three ways Congress can affect foreign policy.
One is by passing substantive legislation, that is, dictating the content of foreign policy.
This is when Congress might, let's say for example, use its power of the purse to decide
to fund a program or not to fund a program. The second way, procedural legislation,
is an indirect impact on foreign policy. Congress decides to change how
foreign policy decisions are made in the Executive branch.
For example, when Congress has been concerned that the
State Department hasn't paid enough attention to, let's say, human rights,
or to counterterrorism, it can pass laws creating new offices within the State Department
that are responsible for those issues.
Finally Congress can shape foreign policy by shaping public opinion.
When we think about Congress holding hearings, or Congress having floor debates,
or members of Congress appearing on TV,
often what they're trying to do is to change public opinion.
When we look at Congress and the president in foreign policy, what we're talking about are
overlapping authorities. Going all the way back to our first president George Washington,
one of his first big political disputes came over whether or not he had the
authority to declare the United States neutral in a war between England and France.
The ebb and flow of power between the White House and Capitol Hill has changed
over the course of American history, usually in response to events. If we were to
go back to the second half of the 19th century, we would discover what we would call
the period of Congressional government. Conversely, we come to the end of World War II,
the United States emerges as a global power, perceives itself to be under threat from the
Soviet Union and the global expansion of Communism, power begins to drift to the president
and we have what we call the imperial presidency. After Vietnam, as people look back and
decide perhaps it wasn't the best use of America's resources, we get criticism of
the imperial presidency and Congress passes a whole slate of laws regarding foreign policy.
In the modern setting, particularly since World War II, clearly the president
has more influence over foreign policy.
Much of the public has been very supportive of strong presidential leadership.
Congress's power in foreign policy is going to be at its greatest
when the president can't act unless Congress does something.
Think of Congress--it's two houses, 535 members, and it can be very difficult to get them
all on the same page, all together, to pass a bill. So where Congressional consent is
needed for the president to act, the inertia of Congress works against the president.
A good example of Congress having leverage in foreign policy came in 2015
over the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran. Congress, over a series of years,
had passed sanctions, encoded in U.S. law, on Iran. The president cannot lift those sanctions on his own.
On the flip side, Congress's leverage in foreign policy is at its lowest in situations in which
the president can act without Congress's consent. Presidents since World War II
have on a number of occasions used military force without Congressional authorization.
Congress at times has fought back against this, most notably
with the passage in 1973 of the War Powers Resolution. It hasn't worked terribly well.
The great historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once referred to it as a toy handcuff.
Is it good if the president and Congress squabble over foreign policy?
The answer to that is unsatisfying. It's really, it depends. We have lots of examples
in which presidents and Congress have worked hand-in-glove and the resulting policy
hasn't been terribly good. Likewise, the fact that presidents and Congress may not
agree doesn't mean that something terrible is happening.
It may reflect the fact that the country's not ready for something yet.