The U.S. Constitution establishes a framework where both the executive and legislative branches share authority over foreign relations. While the President is granted specific powers, such as commanding the military, Congress holds significant influence, notably through its control of funding, often referred to as the “power of the purse.” This division of power is not accidental; it is a deliberate constitutional design intended to foster a balance, preventing any single branch from dominating foreign policy. This article will compare and contrast how both Congress and the President utilize the power of the purse to shape U.S. foreign policy, exploring the inherent tensions and the dynamic interplay between these two branches of government.
Friction by Design: The Constitutional Tug-of-War
The inherent friction between the President and Congress regarding foreign policy is not a flaw, but a fundamental aspect of the U.S. system of checks and balances. The Constitution’s architects, wary of concentrated power, intentionally distributed authority to prevent the kind of monarchical overreach they associated with Britain’s King George III. Drawing lessons from the perceived weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, they sought to avoid legislative tyranny as well. James Madison articulated this principle in the Federalist Papers, emphasizing the sacred separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers as a cornerstone of any free constitution.
Many scholars argue that the ambiguity of the Constitution concerning foreign affairs exacerbates this friction. Unlike domestic policy, where roles are more clearly delineated, foreign policy powers are less explicitly divided. Furthermore, the judiciary’s reluctance to consistently intervene and clarify these constitutional ambiguities ensures that the power struggle between the executive and legislative branches over foreign policy endures.
Congress’s Power of the Purse: A Fiscal Check on Foreign Policy
Article I of the Constitution outlines several explicit foreign affairs powers of Congress. These include the ability to regulate foreign commerce, declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, and govern military forces. Moreover, presidential powers like treaty-making and appointing diplomats are subject to Senate approval, demonstrating a clear Congressional check.
Beyond these enumerated powers, Congress’s most potent tool is its “power of the purse.” The authority to levy taxes, appropriate funds from the Treasury, and enact laws deemed “necessary and proper” grants Congress broad leverage over almost all facets of foreign policy. For instance, Congress can influence policy through legislation, as demonstrated by the 114th Congress (2015–2017) which passed laws spanning from electronic surveillance and North Korea sanctions to border security and wildlife trafficking. In a notable instance of its fiscal power, Congress overrode President Obama’s veto to enact a law allowing victims of international terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments, showcasing its ability to redirect policy even against presidential will.
Congress also exercises significant oversight through the annual appropriations process. Congressional committees meticulously review the budgets of military and diplomatic agencies, wielding considerable influence by approving over a trillion dollars in federal spending annually, with a substantial portion allocated to defense and international affairs. Crucially, Congress can stipulate how these funds are used. A prime example is Congress’s repeated prohibition of the Obama administration from using funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, directly impacting executive action through fiscal control.
Furthermore, Congress’s investigative powers act as an extension of its power of the purse. By launching inquiries into foreign policy and national security matters, such as investigations into the 9/11 attacks or the Benghazi attack, Congress can influence public discourse, hold the executive branch accountable, and indirectly affect future funding decisions. Similarly, Congress’s authority to create or dismantle executive agencies, exemplified by the post-WWII National Security Act of 1947 and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security creation, underscores its fundamental power to shape the bureaucratic landscape of foreign policy through its legislative and fiscal capabilities.
The President’s Fiscal Authority and Constraints
The President’s power in foreign affairs, grounded in Article II of the Constitution, includes the authority to make treaties and appoint ambassadors, albeit with Senate consent. The President also draws upon the broad grant of “executive power” and the role as “commander in chief” to justify a wide range of foreign policy actions. These inherent powers, while significant, are invariably intertwined with and often limited by Congress’s power of the purse.
While the President can initiate and direct foreign policy, the implementation and sustainability of these policies largely depend on congressional funding. The President can propose ambitious foreign policy agendas, but without congressional appropriations, these initiatives can be significantly curtailed or even rendered ineffective. This fiscal dependency creates a constant dynamic of negotiation and compromise between the executive and legislative branches.
Presidents may seek to circumvent congressional restrictions through various means, such as utilizing existing funds or executive agreements that do not require Senate ratification. However, these actions often face legal challenges and political backlash, particularly when they directly contravene congressional intent expressed through appropriations legislation. The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952) Supreme Court case serves as a crucial reminder of the limits of presidential power, even in areas of national security, especially when executive actions encroach upon congressional prerogatives, including fiscal control.
A framework illustrating the separation of powers in U.S. foreign policy, highlighting the checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Comparing and Contrasting the Power of the Purse in Action
The “power of the purse” is a central battleground in the ongoing tension between Congress and the President over foreign policy. Disputes frequently arise when the President and Congress hold differing views on foreign policy priorities, especially when different parties control each branch.
Military Operations: While the President serves as Commander-in-Chief, Congress’s power to “raise and support armies” and declare war provides significant leverage. Although presidents have historically initiated military actions without explicit congressional declarations of war, Congress can exert its influence by controlling funding for these operations. The Vietnam War era saw Congress utilizing amendments to appropriations bills to restrict funding for combat operations, demonstrating the practical application of the power of the purse to constrain presidential military actions. The War Powers Resolution, though often contested by the executive branch, was a direct congressional response to perceived presidential overreach in military affairs, aiming to reassert congressional control, particularly through its fiscal authority.
Foreign Aid: Presidents often encounter congressional resistance when seeking to provide aid to countries that Congress deems problematic, whether due to human rights concerns or other policy disagreements. Congress can withhold or condition foreign aid, compelling the President to adjust foreign policy approaches. While presidents may argue that such restrictions hinder their foreign policy objectives, particularly in areas like counterterrorism, Congress maintains its prerogative to allocate funds based on its own policy priorities.
Intelligence: Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies, particularly in the wake of abuses uncovered in the 1970s, is significantly linked to its power of the purse. By controlling agency budgets, Congress can influence intelligence priorities and demand greater transparency and accountability. While presidents may argue for executive privilege and autonomy in intelligence matters, the need for congressional funding provides a crucial mechanism for oversight and potential constraint.
International Agreements: While the President negotiates treaties, the Senate’s requirement for ratification provides a significant check. Furthermore, congressional funding is often necessary to implement international agreements. Even in the case of executive agreements, which bypass Senate ratification, congressional appropriations can be essential for their effective implementation. This fiscal dimension means that Congress retains influence even over agreements made without its direct treaty power.
Trade and Immigration: In areas like trade and immigration, where Congress has explicit constitutional powers, the power of the purse becomes even more salient. Congress can use its budgetary authority to shape trade policy and immigration enforcement, influencing presidential actions in these domains. Disagreements over funding levels and priorities in these areas frequently become points of contention between the two branches.
However, the effectiveness of Congress’s “power of the purse” is not absolute. Factors such as political will, public opinion, and the timing of congressional action can influence its impact. During times of national crisis or war, Congress may be less inclined to challenge presidential foreign policy initiatives through funding restrictions, fearing political repercussions or appearing unsupportive of national security efforts. Furthermore, presidents possess significant persuasive power and can leverage public opinion to pressure Congress, potentially mitigating the effectiveness of the power of the purse.
Trends and Future of Fiscal Influence
Historically, presidential power in foreign policy has tended to expand, particularly during times of war or national emergency. However, Congress’s power of the purse remains a critical, albeit sometimes underutilized, check on executive authority. Whether Congress will effectively leverage this power in the future remains an open question.
Some analysts argue that Congress has, at times, abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities, including its fiscal oversight role. However, presidential actions that are perceived as overreach or that lack broad public support can create opportunities for Congress to reassert its influence through the power of the purse. Political polarization and divided government can also create conditions where Congress is more willing to use its fiscal authority to challenge presidential foreign policy.
In conclusion, the “power of the purse” represents a fundamental aspect of the constitutional balance of power in U.S. foreign policy. While the President possesses significant inherent authority, Congress’s control over funding provides a crucial mechanism for oversight, influence, and constraint. The ongoing dynamic between these two branches, shaped by their respective powers and the ever-evolving political landscape, ensures that the “power of the purse” will continue to be a central feature of the U.S. foreign policy process.
Additional Resources
For further exploration of the division of war powers, consult James M. Lindsay’s blog series on the U.S. intervention in Libya. Additionally, Stephen R. Weissman’s article in Foreign Affairs discusses the potential for Congress to take a more active role in foreign policy, particularly in response to presidential initiatives.
