Briefing
March 2017
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service
Authors: Micaela Del Monte and Elena Lazarou
EPRS - EP Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
EN
PE 599.381
How Congress and President shape
US foreign policy
SUMMARY
The United States Constitution regulates the conduct of American foreign policy
through a system of checks and balances. The Constitution provides both Congress
and the President, as the legislative and executive branches respectively, with the
legal authority to shape relations with foreign nations. It recognises that only the
federal government is authorised to conduct foreign policy; that federal courts are
competent in cases arising under treaties; and declares treaties the supreme law of
the land. The Constitution also lists the powers of Congress, including the 'power of
the purse' (namely the ability to tax and spend public money on behalf of the federal
government), the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to
declare war and the authority to raise and support the army and navy. At the same
time, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States (US) army and
navy and, although Congressional action is required to declare war, it is generally
agreed that the President has the authority to respond to attacks against the US and
to lead the armed forces. While the President’s powers are substantial, they are not
without limits, due to the role played by the legislative branch.
In light of the discussion of the foreign policy options of the new administration under
President Donald Trump, this briefing specifically explores the powers conferred to
conclude international agreements, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to
use military force and to declare war. It also explains how Congress performs its
oversight – or ‘watchdog’ – functions with regard to foreign policy, the tools at its
disposal, and the role of committees in the process.
In this briefing:
Executive and legislative roles in the US
Constitution
Concluding international agreements
Regulating commerce with foreign
nations
Declaring war and the use of military
force
Congressional oversight of foreign
policy
Main references
Annex
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 2 of 12
Executive and legislative roles in the United States Constitution
The United States (US) Constitution establishes a broad scenario for developing relations
with other countries and leaves the government branches to set precedents. Generally,
the Constitution regulates the conduct of American foreign policy by subjecting it – like
all federal power – to a system of checks and balances. Consequently, observers of
geopolitical strategy followed the 2016 presidential election closely, while the
Congressional election proceeded relatively unnoticed. However, while the President’s
powers are particularly substantial, they are not without limits. The President does not
make decisions in a vacuum, but in a context where the legislative branch has its own role
to play. The Constitution provides the legal authority to both Congress, the legislative
branch and the President, the executive branch, to shape relations with foreign nations;
it recognises that only the federal government – not
the states – is authorised to conduct foreign policy,
and that federal courts are competent in cases arising
under treaties; it declares treaties the supreme law of
the land.
The Constitution also lists the powers of Congress,
including the ‘power of the purse’ (i.e. the ability to
tax and spend public money on behalf of the federal
government), the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, the power to declare war, and the
authority to raise and support the army and navy. The
President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US army
and navy, and although Congressional action is
required to declare war, it is generally agreed that the
President has the authority to respond to attacks
against the US, and to lead the armed forces. In the
course of American history, Congress has declared war
five times against 11 nations,
1
and has authorised the
use of military force on other occasions, as was the
case against Iraq in 2002.
The President also has the legal authority to make
treaties, and appoint Ambassadors, subject to Senate advice and consent, as well as the
authority to receive Ambassadors and other public ministers. While primary
responsibility for entering into international agreements lies with the President, these
agreements are often not self-executing. They therefore require congressional
implementing legislation to give US authorities the domestic legal authority required to
enforce and implement the agreement. The President is the nation’s chief diplomat, and
the State Department acts as the President’s executive agency in the conduct of
diplomatic action. The State Department’s mission includes, among other things, the
preservation of US national security; the promotion of world peace; respect of the rule of
law and human rights; and cooperation in international trade organisations. While the
Secretary of State does not originate foreign policy, the office-holder is the President’s
principal foreign policy adviser and as such is expected to conduct diplomacy and
coordinate and implement government policies affecting other countries.
Finally, Congress can use its oversight role to question and influence policy choices, in
particular, during the annual procedure to authorise and allocate funds for the agencies
Congress and President shaping foreign
policy cooperatively
In June 1947, Secretary of State
George C. Marshall proposed US help for
European recovery, on the condition that
the European states initiate and agree on
plans for aid programmes. Western
European governments proposed a
programme based on four years of US
assistance. President Harry S. Truman
requested an interim aid programme,
which was approved by Congress in 1947;
subsequently submitting a longer term
European Recovery Program to Congress.
This operation allowed Congress sufficient
time to hold hearings and create a Select
Committee on Foreign Aid that carried out
an independent study on Europe needs.
The final legislation for the Marshall Plan
from 1948 was considered the product of
a joint effort by both branches of
government.
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 3 of 12
responsible for foreign policy. Through hearings, investigations and subpoenas
2
Congress
monitors policy developments, and holds the President accountable. One of the most
recent investigations looked into the circumstances surrounding the 2012 attacks on the
US consulate in Benghazi, leading to the death of the US Ambassador to Libya and one US
information officer.
Concluding international agreements
In the United States, the term 'international agreement' pools two major types of
agreements: international treaties and executive agreements.
3
In setting its foreign
policy priorities, the administration may decide to begin negotiations with a country,
withdraw from, or renegotiate, existing international agreements. For instance,
President Trump expressed a clear intention to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement, and
issued a Memorandum directing the US Trade Representative (USTR) to withdraw the US
from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
According to US law, a treaty is an international agreement whose entry into force with
respect to the US requires two-thirds of the Senate to give advice and consent, as well as
Presidential ratification, acting as Chief Diplomat of the US.
4
Once ratified, a treaty
becomes the supreme law of the land,
5
although a distinction should be made between
self-executing treaties and non-self-executing treaties, which require implementing
legislation.
6
The US government has broad powers to enter into treaties with foreign
countries. Indeed, according to the US Supreme Court, Article 6 of the US Constitution
confers a treaty power on the US, which ‘extends to all proper subjects of negotiation
between our government and the governments of other nations ... as it is not perceived
that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter’.
7
For
the first century of US history, around half of all international agreements were made
under the constitutional provision of Article 2,
8
however, from the 1940s, the ratio of
executive agreements rose to 94 %. This shift may have occurred due to a necessity to
respond to the complex and extremely challenging international context, which often
requires rapid action. It may also have resulted de facto, as a progressive erosion of
congressional prerogatives, to the benefit of presidential powers.
How Article 2 treaties are concluded
The Constitution gives both the Senate and President a share of treaty power. This
ensures that the Senate can check presidential power and safeguard the sovereignty of
the states by giving each of them an equal vote in the treaty making process. The process
of concluding Article 2 treaties comprises a number of steps: negotiation, signature,
Senate consideration, Senate advice and consent, and finally presidential ratification.
Negotiation and conclusion: While negotiating is a sole presidential prerogative,
9
informal Senate involvement, or at least consultation, during negotiations is often
ensured, although not formalised. The practice probably developed to guarantee formal
Senate advice and consent at a later stage. The President is also responsible for signing
the treaty, signalling that negotiators have reached an agreement, and that the US
consents to be bound, once the treaty is ratified.
Consideration by Senate Committee: Following signature, the President may submit a
treaty to the Senate for advice and consent. The transmission is accompanied by a
presidential message including a detailed description of treaty provisions. The treaty is
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and placed on the committee calendar.
Although the committee is not bound to take any action, if it decides to do so; it may hold
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 4 of 12
hearings, and invite experts and the administration to provide information related to the
treaty. The committee may subsequently present the treaty to the full Senate, or return
it to the President. In reporting to the full Senate, the committee proposes a resolution
of ratification. Often, a treaty is reported with no conditions, but the Committee may also
recommend that the Senate adopt the treaty under certain conditions.
10
If these
conditions alter the nature of the treaty, requiring the reopening of negotiations, the
President must communicate the conditions to the other treaty parties.
Consideration and vote by the full Senate: The full Senate votes on the treaty, following
consideration of the resolution of ratification as proposed by the Committee on Foreign
Relations. The vote requires the agreement of two thirds of the Senators present. Should
the vote fail, the treaty may be returned to the committee or to the President.
Ratification: Should the vote be successful, the President decides whether or not to ratify.
The ratification process consists of the President signing and sealing an instrument of
ratification, which is then exchanged with the treaty counterpart. Following this
exchange, the President issues a proclamation declaring the treaty’s entry into force.
During the Obama Administration’s two terms, 34 treaties were approved by the Senate
(on extradition, mutual legal assistance, tax convention, and defence trade cooperation,
among other things), while 109 treaties were approved under the two terms of the
George W Bush Administration preceding it.
Article 2 treaties versus executive agreements
Article 2 treaties are not the only way to conclude international agreements. Under US
law, international agreements can be brought into force on a different legal basis than
Senate advice and consent. These are known as executive agreements,
11
which can be
concluded on the basis of:
(1) existing legislation, or subject to subsequent
legislation to be enacted by both chambers of
Congress (known as Congressional executive
agreements). In this case, Congressional authorisation
is given in the form of a statute passed by both
chambers. The most common use of these types of
agreements is in international trade, where
Congressional legislation authorises the President to
negotiate and enter into agreements to reduce tariffs
or other impediments to international trade;
(2) existing agreement (known as treaty executive
agreements). For example, the US-Japan Migratory
Birds Convention of 1972 establishes that new species
may be added to the list of protected species by a simple exchange of diplomatic
notes;
(3) sole presidential authority, without seeking legislative branch approval (known as
presidential or sole executive agreements). It is argued that on this basis,
presidential authority is limited to specific cases. The President, as Commander-in-
Chief and Chief Diplomat, could conclude armistice agreements as well as certain
agreements incidental to the operation of foreign embassies in the form of sole
executive agreements. One of the best-known sole executive agreements was
concluded between the US and Iran to solve the Iran hostage crisis, known as the
‘Algiers Accords’, in 1981. Although limited in scope, these agreements may have
Types of international agreements
Article II Treaties, with Senate
advice and consent
Congressional executive
agreements, requiring
legislation by Congress
with prior congressional
approval
with subsequent approval of
Congress
Treaty executive agreements
Presidential or sole executive
agreements
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 5 of 12
considerable consequences in political terms, such as the Litvinov Agreement in 1933
regarding American recognition of the Soviet Union, the ‘destroyers for Bases
Exchange’ with the United Kingdom in 1940,
12
or the Yalta Agreement in 1945.
Regardless of the type of executive agreement, if budget outlay is required, Congress is
involved, due to its ‘power of the purse’.
How to determine the type of agreement
Appendix A of the State Department C-175 Handbook,
13
lists a number of elements to be
considered by the administration, notably:
the commitments and risks involved into the agreement;
possible effects on state law;
past practice in similar cases;
necessity to enact law to give effect to the agreement;
Congress preferences;
proposed duration, and the degree of urgency required to conclude.
These criteria are meant to guide the administration rather than undermine the exercise of
presidential discretion. Indeed political considerations may also play a role.
How to terminate international agreements
Terminating international agreements has to be approached from two different legal
contexts; international law and US domestic law. According to international law, a party
may withdraw from an agreement either in accordance with the terms of the agreement
(usually termination by notice), or, in the absence of specific provisions, in accordance
with the Vienna Convention of 1969.
14
Breach of the treaty by one of the parties or by
agreement of all the involved parties may also result in termination of an agreement.
Under US domestic law, the first element to note is that the US Constitution contains no
specific provision for withdrawal from international agreements, indeed Article 2 only
sets a procedure for the President and Senate to make treaties. As Article 6 of the US
Constitution recognises treaties as the law of the land, with the same domestic status as
federal law, it is assumed that US participation could be terminated if Congress passes a
subsequent statute which is inconsistent with the terms of an existing international
agreement. In this case, however, only domestic law would be affected, while
international obligations would remain unchanged. Practice has been inconsistent over
the years, indeed, international agreements have been terminated by the:
President following Congress authorisation or direction (for instance direction
mandating termination by notice of the President);
President with subsequent congressional approval;
President following Senate authorisation or direction;
President with subsequent Senate approval;
President alone.
Such inconsistency, and the absence of clear legislative norms, raises academic questions,
and disputes between the legislative and executive. The debate has focused mainly on
the President’s unilateral authority to terminate international agreements, but some
observers have also looked at the possibility for Congress to terminate agreements
without presidential support. Reasonable arguments have been put forward to explain
why the authority to terminate an agreement should be vested in the President alone, in
the President with the Senate, or in Congress. A CRS study suggests that the President
alone has the authority to terminate international obligations, as regardless of the
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 6 of 12
domestic approval procedure, the President alone consents on behalf of the United
States and has ‘plenary and exclusive [power] … as the sole organ of the Federal
Government in the field of international relations’.
15
For instance, in 1979, President
Jimmy Carter terminated the Mutual Defence Treaty with Taiwan unilaterally. The judicial
branch, traditionally reluctant to clarify the issue, dismissed the subsequent case on
‘political question’
16
grounds (i.e. the challenge was considered a political, rather than a
judicial, question). More recently, in 2002, President George W. Bush terminated the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and the district court also declared this case
unsuitable for resolution in the court, due to the ‘political question’.
17
Paris Agreement
During the 2016 presidential debate, President Donald Trump questioned the US commitment to
a transition to a low-carbon economy and threated to 'withdraw from the Paris Agreement'. The
US became a signatory party to the Paris Agreement in April 2016, by signature of the Secretary
of State. Subsequently, President Barack Obama signed the Agreement’s instrument of
acceptance, and the US became party to the Agreement upon its entry into force in
November 2016. This was considered an executive agreement and not a treaty. The issue of which
provisions to make binding was a central concern for the Obama administration, so that the
President could accept the agreement without seeking Senate advice and consent. Additionally,
Congress enacted no implementing legislation, and the administration did not declare that its
provisions were self-executing. From an international law perspective, Article 28 of the Paris
Agreement specifies that a party may notify its intention to withdraw three years from the date
on which the agreement entered into force for the given party, to take effect one year from the
date of notification.
18
This four year period could be reduced to one should the US decide to
withdraw from the 1992 United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Indeed, the Paris Agreement states that withdrawal from the UNFCCC shall also be considered as
withdrawal from the Agreement, even though the UNFCCC was considered a treaty and received
Senate advice and consent. Thus, under US domestic law, it is unclear what role Congress should
play in termination of the Agreement. Finally, even without formal withdrawal, the new
administration would appear to have the option to undermine Paris Agreement objectives by
refusing to implement some of its provisions.
Regulating commerce with foreign nations
While the President retains the power to make treaties, Congress has the authority to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and may exercise its power in other ways, from
oversight on international trade policies and programmes to implementing legislation on
international trade matters. Although many committees may be involved, depending on
their specific jurisdiction, in Congress the primary responsibility for trade matters rests
with the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. To
reaffirm Congress’s overall constitutional role in initiating and overseeing US trade policy,
Congress has enacted Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation. Also known as ‘fast-
track’, TPA is an expedited procedure that allows Congress to implement trade
agreements, providing that the administration fulfils the negotiating objectives and
respects certain requirements on notification to and consultation with Congress. In
general, expedited procedures may establish time for floor scheduling of bills, limit
debate in committees and/or limit the possibility to offer (i.e. table) amendments. In the
specific case of trade, the modern form of TPA, introduced in 1974, establishes, among
other things, automatic discharge from committee, limited floor debate, and an ‘up or
down’ vote without amendments. This latter is an important element in trade
negotiations, as foreign nations may be confident that the negotiated agreement with
the executive will not be amended by the legislative branch. Finally, TPA establishes the
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 7 of 12
process for Congress to withdraw the expedited procedure to an implementing bill,
should it consider that TPA requirements have not been fulfilled. In such a case, the
implementing bill would be considered under the general rules of procedures, with
Congress enabled to offer amendments. The United States is party to 14 international
free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 countries and is also negotiating a Trans-Atlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union.
Figure 1 – United States' free trade agreements
Source: CRS, International Trade and Finance: Overview and Issues for the 115th Congress,
21 December 2016.
Regulating tariffs
During the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump mentioned unilateral
withdrawal from a number of trade agreements, but also the possibility of imposing high
tariffs (for example, on Mexico and China). The US Constitution vests the power to impose
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, in Congress – and not in the President.
Nevertheless, since the 1930s, Congress has adopted legislation to delegate authority to
the President to reduce tariffs and has conferred other powers related to trade on the
President.
19
A recent CRS report provides a non-exhaustive list of statutes that would
authorise the administration to impose tariffs and/or quotas or regulate commerce.
Although the wording of the statutes, as well as the presidential powers and the
conditions are inconsistent, the report mentions that most of the acts accompany the
delegation of powers with conditions and time limits (see Annex I).
Declaring war and the use of military force
The Constitution divides powers pertaining to warfare between Congress and the
President. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to declare war, while Article 2,
Section 2, authorises the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to lead all the armed forces.
Thus, while Congress makes decisions regarding the declaring and funding of an
operation, the President directs it.
While it is generally agreed that, as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the power to
utilise the armed forces as the President deems necessary when the US faces an attack,
presidential authorisation to deploy forces (US troops) abroad without congressional
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 8 of 12
authorisation or a declaration of war (which, as explained above, is a congressional
power) has been controversial. While Presidents have, de facto, used their authority to
send US troops into combat or into situations of imminent hostilities in the past, this
remains an issue of concern today.
The issue of presidential use of armed forces without congressional authorisation was
addressed in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which was passed by Congress overriding
the veto of President Richard Nixon. The resolution aimed at establishing procedures for
both the executive and legislative branch to share decisions regarding involvement in war
or deployment of US armed forces in hostile situations. Under this law, the President
must:
consult with Congress before sending US troops into hostile situations;
report commitment of US forces to Congress within 24 hours;
end military action within 60 days if Congress does not declare war or authorise
the use of force.
According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1975 to 2012, presidents have
submitted more than 130 reports related to deployment of US forces, as required by the
resolution. However, only a single occasion, the 1975 Mayaguez incident, cited action
triggering the sixty-day time limit.
Congress retains the ‘power of the purse’ when it comes to the approval, modification or
rejection of defence spending (the Department of Defense budget). The National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual federal law specifying the Department of Defense
budget and expenditures. It advances the vital funding and authorities that America’s
military requires. In addition, Congress oversees the defence budget primarily through
defense appropriations bills.
Experts argue that powers related to warfare remain ‘spelled out more clearly for
Congress but in practice are dominated by presidential action’.
Contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
During his campaign, and as President-elect, Donald Trump criticised NATO as 'obsolete', leading
to speculation that he would consider decreasing US contributions to the alliance. However, in
his first presidential address to Congress, on 28 February 2017, President Trump said his
administration ‘strongly supports’ NATO, but reiterated his appeal to ‘partners to meet their
financial obligations’. However, US participation in NATO is also subject to congressional
approval, as it is directly linked to budgetary approval. For example, in 2015, the Obama
administration requested, and Congress appropriated, about US$1 billion for a new European
Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in the Department of Defense (DOD) Overseas Contingency
Operations account. This was a contribution to increased US military activities under Operation
Atlantic Resolve. In 2016, the administration requested, and received, US$789.3 million for ERI.
The ERI aims at enhancing US military activities, including increased military presence in Europe;
additional bilateral and multilateral exercises, and training with allies and partners; enhanced
prepositioning of US equipment; and intensified efforts to build partner capacity for newer NATO
members and other partners. In its proposed budget for the 2017 financial year, the Obama
administration requested US$3.4 billion (a fourfold increase) in funding for the ERI, primarily to
enable ‘a quicker and more robust response in support of NATO’s common defence’. The 2017
budget is currently funded with a stop-gap measure. When a full budget is passed (possibly in
April 2017), Congress’s response to the request will be clearer. President Trump’s proposed
budget for 2018 increases defence spending by US$54 million.
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 9 of 12
Congressional oversight of foreign policy
Congress has the constitutional power to scrutinise, and the authority to promote, a
democratically accountable foreign policy. In doing so, Congress informs public opinion
about presidential use of force, global strategic choices, and federal spending priorities,
and ensures that the administration does not depart from congressional intent. In this
respect, mention should also be made of the Case-Zablocki Act of 1972, also known as
the Case Act, which requires the Secretary of State to transmit to Congress all
international agreements other than treaties no later than 60 days after their entry into
force.
20
A recent book
21
by Linda L. Fowler, Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, looks
at the formal public hearings of the two Senate Committees (Armed Services and Foreign
Relations) from 1947 to 2008, to assess whether or not Congress was effective in
performing its scrutiny of international affairs.
22
The analysis concludes that, although
congressional involvement in foreign policy is important, it has multiple motivations and
not always aligned goals. Congress is often driven by crises and perceived threats to
national interests, but contrary to possible expectations, oversight does not only happen
in times of divided government (i.e. to maintain the constitutional remit of the executive).
For instance, in 2004, the Senate conducted public hearings on the Iraq War and
investigated abuse of detainees at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib Prison. The number of hearings
only increased when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Fowler argues for a
reassessment of congressional powers on war, and proposes reform to encourage Senate
watchdogs to improve public deliberation on decisions of war and peace.
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe – The Helsinki Commission
Congressional oversight on foreign policy can sometimes be achieved through a specific
approach. In 1976, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the
Helsinki Commission, was created to promote human rights, military security, and economic
cooperation in Europe, Eurasia, and North America. The Commission, which is an independent US
government agency, counts 21 commissioners: nine members from the Senate, and nine from
the House of Representatives (five from the majority and four from the minority in both
chambers), who serve for the duration of the Congress from which they are appointed. Three
commissioners come from the executive branch and are appointed by the President: one each
from the Department of State, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Commerce.
Several foreign policy experts argue that presidents have accumulated power at the
expense of Congress in recent years, especially during times of war or national
emergency. They attribute this to the spirit and wording of the Constitution itself, and to
the reluctance of the judicial branch to clarify foreign policy related questions. Most
academics seem to concur that congressional oversight is a key element to maintaining
balance in the shaping of US foreign policy.
Main references
E. Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 4th edition, Wolters Kluver, 2011.
Treaties and other International Agreements: The role of the United States Senate, a study
prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate by the Congressional
Research Service, January 2001.
G. S. Krutz and J. S. Peake, Treaties and Executive Agreements: A History, The University of
Michigan Press, 2009.
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 10 of 12
M. J. Garcia, International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law, CRS,
18 February 2015.
R. F. Grimmett, War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, CRS, 25 September 2012.
Endnotes
1
1812 war with Great Britain, 1846 war with Mexico, 1898 war with Spain, 1971 World War I with Germany and
Hungary, 1941 World War II with Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania.
2
Subpoena power is defined as the ‘authority granted to House and Senate committees by the rules of their
respective houses to issue legal orders requiring individuals to appear and testify, or to produce documents
pertinent to the committee’s functions, or both’.
3
According to a 2015 CRS report, over 17 300 executive agreements have been concluded by the US since 1939 (out
of 18 500 since 1789) compared to 1 100 treaties that have been ratified by the US.
4
The article reads: ‘He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur’.
5
Whitney v. Robertson, 1888. ‘Both statues and treaties are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and no
superior efficacy is given to either over the other’.
6
In the latter, more precisely, it is the legislation, not the treaty, which becomes law of the land.
7
Geofroy v. Riggs, 1890.
8
G. Krutz and J. Peake: Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements International commitments in a System
of Shared Powers, University of Michigan Press, 2009, p. 24.
9
United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp, 1936.
10
A 2001 CRS report lists four main types of conditions: 1) Amendments, requiring the consent of the other treaty
parties; 2) Reservations changing US obligations thus also requiring the consent of the other treaty parties;
3) Understanding clarifying and interpreting the text without modifying it; 4) Declarations expressing Senate
position on a given issue.
11
Executive Agreements can be used for any purpose, meaning that anything that can be done by treaty can be done
by executive agreement.
12
In 1940, thanks to the Destroyer-Bases Agreement, President Roosevelt extended American involvement in World
War II. The US agreed to loan the United Kingdom 50 naval destroyers, and the US obtained 99 year free leases to
develop military bases in Caribbean and Newfoundland locations in exchange.
13
Article 721.3 Appendix A, The Handbook on Treaties and Other International Agreements (The C-175 Handbook),
US Department of State.
14
Although the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, in many aspects, it is considered to reflect customary
international law.
15
United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp, 1936.
16
Goldwater v. Carter, 1979. Several members of Congress challenged the President’s right to drop out of the mutual
defence agreement with Taiwan and went to court. While the Court of Appeal stated that unilateral presidential
action was sufficient to terminate a treaty, four Justices of the Supreme Court found the case non justiciable. See
Baker v. Carr, 1962, in particular Justice Curtis’ opinion.
17
Kucinich v. Bush, 2002.
18
J. A. Leggett, R. K. Lattanzio, Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions about the 2015 Paris Agreement, CRS,
5 October 2016.
19
In these cases, presidential actions under this delegated authority may be challenged in court, to check whether the
delegation of powers was constitutional or whether the President acted within the scope of the powers specifically
delegated by Congress.
20
Should the President consider the disclosure of an executive agreement prejudicial to the US security, the act will
be transmitted to the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations Committees with a security
classification.
21
L. L. Fowler, Watchdogs on the hill, the decline of congressional oversight of U.S. foreign relations, Princeton
University Press, 2015.
22
Together the Senate Armed services and Foreign Relations Committees conducted 3 257 public hearings and 2 124
executive sessions for a total of 5 381 observations and 11 276 formal hearing days.
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 11 of 12
Disclaimer and Copyright
This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as
background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole
responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official
position of the Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.
© European Union, 2017.
Photo credits: © assetseller / Fotolia.
[email protected]
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet)
http://epthinktank.eu (blog)
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
EPRS - European Parliament Liaison Office, Washington DC; Members’ Research Service
Page 12 of 12
Annex I
Statutes available to the US President to reduce tariffs and other trade-related powers
(non-exhaustive list)
Congressional Statute
Conditions
Presidential powers
Limited powers or subject to conditions
Tariff Act of 1930
When the President finds the
public interest is served if the
country discriminates
New or additional duties if certain
conditions are met
Trade Expansion Act of
1962,
Section 232(b)
Finding of an adverse impact on
national security from imports
Impose tariffs or quotas as needed to
offset the adverse impact, subject to
procedural requirements
Trade Act of 1974,
Section 122
Fundamental US balance of
payments deficit
Impose tariffs up to 15 %, or
quantitative restrictions, or both for a
maximum of 150 days against one or
more countries with large balance of
payments surpluses
Trade Act of 1974,
Section 301
Foreign country denies the US its
trade agreement rights or carries
out practices that are
unjustifiable, unreasonable, or
discriminatory
Modification of tariff rates
Trade Act of 1974,
Section 501
After considering certain
conditions
Authorisation to grant certain duty
preferences to articles from any
beneficiary developing country
NAFTA Implementation
Act of 1993, Section 201
When the President determines
it necessary within the confines
of the agreement
Proclamation of tariffs (modification,
rate reduction, additional duties)
Uruguay Round
Agreement of 1994,
Section 111
When the President determines
it necessary within the confines
of the agreement
Proclamation of tariffs (modification,
rate reduction, additional duties)
Dominican Republican-
Central America Free
Trade of 2005, Section
201
When the President determines
it necessary within the confines
of the agreement (limited tariff-
reduction authority under the
implementing legislation of the
FTA
Proclamation of tariffs (modification or
continuation of any duties, additional
duties)
Bipartisan Congressional
Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act of
2015, section 103
When the President determines
that existing duties or import
restrictions of foreign countries
are a burden for US trade
Proclamation of tariffs (modification or
continuation of any duties, additional
duties). However the President shall
notify his intention to Congress and
the delegation of authority is subject
to a number of restrictions.
Almost unlimited powers
Trading with the Enemy
Act of 1917, Section 5
During time of war
Fairly broad authority (investigate,
regulate, direct and compel, nullify,
void), plus the power to freeze and
seize foreign-owned assets of all kinds
International Emergency
Economic Powers Act of
1977, Section 203
National emergency to deal with
an unusual and extraordinary
threat outside the US
Fairly broad authority (investigate,
regulate, direct and compel, nullify,
void), however the President in every
possible instance shall consult the
Congress.
Source: C. Devereaux Lewis, Presidential Authority over Trade: Imposing Tariffs and Duties, CRS, 9 December 2016.