The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the president. Congress has the sole power to declare war and appropriate funding, while the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  

The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 was adopted to hold the president accountable for military operations outside of a formal war declaration. The WPR outlines that the president may deploy the military under certain criteria, including in response to situations that involve direct national security or authority granted by Congress.  

This authority most commonly comes in the form of congressional Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), particularly the two passed in the early 2000s: the 2001 AUMF, in response to the attacks of September 11, and the 2002 AUMF related to Iraq. 

The use of these AUMFs has become controversial as the line between formal war declarations and executive military intervention has become blurry, and the practical application of these powers remains controversial.  

Proponents of requiring Congressional authorization see recent military interventions over the past 25 years as an overstepping of the Constitution. They argue that the Constitution intended to prevent unilateral decisions around military deployment, and that many executive military operations are circumventing the intended checks and balances. Many proponents also point to past conflicts that resulted in negative long-term consequences, affecting either the host nation, the U.S., or both. Many also refer to democratic and international accountability, that Congress’ involvement would prevent open-ended or undeclared conflicts and maintain a level of accountability with the American people and allied nations. 

Opponents of requiring Congressional authorization argue that Congress cannot operate with the flexibility and urgency that modern military threats require. They emphasize that risking deadlocks or political interference could be costly when lives or national security are at stake Many point out that the Constitution names the president as the commander in chief, arguing that it implies the authority to deploy troops when necessary to protect U.S. interests and its people—some also argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional in limiting the president’s authority.  

The Founding Framers knew that authority over the armed forces would be controversial, and Americans continue to wrestle over how to turn the Constitution’s framing into practice, especially in today’s landscape of technology and warfare.  

So, what do you think? Should Congress Be Required to Authorize U.S. Military Force in Foreign Conflicts? Students can answer, “Yes, they should;” “No, they should not;” or a nuanced answer in between! Be sure to submit your responses by January 29 to be considered for this week’s contest.