MOD 5: The President in US Foreign Policy
The President in US Foreign Policy
Overview of Presidential Leadership in Foreign Policy
Constitutional Foundations: Examination of the constitutional basis for presidential authority in foreign policy making.
Politics in the US Foreign Policy Bureaucracy: Analysis of how coordination problems and interagency political competition influence US foreign policy.
Impact of War on Presidential Authority: Exploration of whether and how war expands presidential power.
Controversies of Executive Orders: Discussion of issues surrounding the use of executive orders, particularly in immigration, and their political challenges and limitations.
Constitutional Foundations of Presidential Authority in Foreign Policy
Executive authority over foreign policy is rooted in two key articles of the US Constitution:
The President's role as Commander in Chief.
The general Executive Power vested in the President.
The framers intended foreign policy to be a core part of executive powers.
Article II, Section 2: States, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." This establishes direct military command.
Article II, Section 1: Declares, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This broadly grants executive authority.
Article II, Section 2: Also grants the President power, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors…" highlighting shared powers in diplomacy and appointments.
Historical Interpretation: A memo from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington in 1790 supports this view, stating, "The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether; it belongs, then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly."
Separation of Powers and Foreign Policy
The logic behind splitting war-making powers between the President and Congress is crucial for understanding the system of checks and balances.
Article I, Section 8: Grants Congress the power to:
Declare war.
Raise and support armies.
This division is a fundamental component of Madison's system of separation of powers and checks and balances, designed to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power, especially in matters of war.
Managing the Foreign Policy Bureaucracy (I): Coordination Problems
The President and the National Security Advisor play a substantial role in coordinating numerous executive branch agencies involved in foreign policy.
Key agencies include: State Department, Defense Department, CIA, NDI (National Director of Intelligence), NSA, Treasury, Commerce, and Homeland Security.
Interagency coordination is vital, akin to "rules of the road" where everyone needs to be on the same page.
Problems arise when interagency coordination fails:
Example: Prior to the First Persian Gulf War in 1990, mixed messages from different US agencies undermined diplomatic efforts and contributed to the failure to deter Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Managing the Foreign Policy Bureaucracy (II): Competing Interests
Within the executive branch, there are often competing foreign policy interests among different departments and agencies.
This competition is intensely political, influencing decisions on who gains or loses resources and policy influence.
Implications for Implementation: These internal conflicts can significantly impact how foreign policy is executed.
Example: After the US invasion of Iraq, there was significant debate and competition over whether post-invasion stabilization efforts should be managed primarily by the State Department or the Department of Defense, reflecting their distinct institutional approaches and interests.
Managing the Foreign Policy Bureaucracy (III): "Turf Wars" and Organizational Competition
Competing interests among agencies are often generated by "turf wars" or organizational competition.
Bureaucratic power is a function of resource control:
Agencies often strive to spend all their allocated resources to justify claiming more funding in subsequent years.
Policy preferences are frequently generated by an organization's specific needs, missions, and mandates.
Example: In the early stages of the Cold War, there was significant inter-service rivalry and competition between the Air Force and the Army regarding strategic roles, resource allocation, and preferred military doctrines.
War-Making and Expansion of Presidential Authority
Conventional Wisdom: It is widely understood that war significantly expands presidential authority.
Empirical Finding: This expansion is not limited to the prosecution of war itself but also extends to domestic policy matters. During wartime, Congress tends to vote closer to presidential preferences or policy goals.
Puzzle: Given the constitutional authority of the legislative and judicial branches to check presidential power, why do members of these branches often accede to increased presidential authority during war?
Howell, Jackman, and Rogowski's Explanation for Expanded Presidential Authority
Importance of Different Constituencies:
The President represents a single, larger national constituency.
Congress members represent narrower, district-level constituencies, meaning societal interests can be more concentrated on specific ideological perspectives (left or right).
Congress members balance national and district interests, which can sometimes compete (e.g., maintaining military bases in a district after the Cold War, even if no longer strategically vital).
Elevation of National Goals: War elevates the importance of national security goals in the political calculations of congressional officials.
This leads them to move closer to the President's position, enhancing his authority and enabling him to achieve more of his policy goals.
Congressional Uncertainty & Executive Informational Advantage: Congressional officials often face uncertainty about the optimal foreign policy choice, especially in complex or rapidly evolving situations.
This uncertainty strengthens the executive branch, which often possesses an "informational" advantage due to its access to intelligence and specialized expertise.
Discussion: Golan-Vilella on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
Legal Foundations for Continuing War: A key issue is the legal basis for the ongoing war against terrorism, particularly against ISIS.
Obama Administration's Argument (Fall 2014): President Obama argued that the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), enacted after 9/11, provided legal authorization for the war against ISIS because ISIS was deemed a successor organization to Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Golan-Vilella's Arguments: She advocates for a revisiting and revision of two key AUMFs:
Repeal the 2002 AUMF: Arguing that the war in Iraq is over and this authorization is no longer relevant.
Require the Administration to Name Organizations: The executive branch should explicitly name the specific organizations against which it has legal grounds to use military force, rather than relying on broad interpretations.
Concern over Indefinite War: She raises concerns about the potential for the war on terror to continue and expand indefinitely without specific, updated congressional authorizations.
The Problem: Despite these concerns, there is a relative contentment in both the executive and legislative branches with the legal status quo, which allows for broad presidential discretion.
Implications: This situation raises questions about the expanding executive authority and its potential threat to the democratic process, as Congress appears to cede significant war-making power to the President.
The Politics of Executive Orders
Definition: An executive order is an official directive from the President that carries the force of law.
However, unlike legislation, executive orders do not possess permanence; they can be revoked by subsequent presidents or overturned by courts.
Both President Obama and President Trump have sought to use executive orders to shape foreign policy, especially concerning immigration.
President Obama's 2014 Executive Order on Immigration:
Aimed to provide temporary legal status to an estimated 4 to 5 million undocumented immigrants in the US.
This order was ultimately blocked in court by states that argued the President had overstepped his constitutional authority.
President Trump's Executive Actions on Immigration (Travel Ban):
Issued two different versions of executive orders restricting immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries, which the administration deemed to have high levels of terrorist activity.
Both orders were blocked in court based on claims that they were unconstitutional because they discriminated based on religion.
Political Challenges Encouraging Executive Orders: Presidents often pursue executive orders to overcome legislative gridlock or a divided Congress, allowing them to enact policies without congressional approval.
Limitations of Executive Orders: The battles over these immigration policies illustrate the inherent limitations of executive orders in making foreign policy. When challenged, they can be overturned by the judicial branch, especially if they are deemed to exceed presidential authority or violate constitutional principles like non-discrimination.