Navigating War Powers: Congress vs. Presidential Authority

Without new congressional authorization for its post-Oct. 7 operations in the Middle East, the Biden administration has sought to legally justify its military activities in the region based on the president’s constitutional authority and the application of existing statutory authorities to operations against new adversaries. These executive branch arguments are the outgrowth of similar arguments presidential administrations have made over the last few decades, largely related to the requirements in the War Powers Resolution. 

The International Crisis Group recently analyzed these arguments and related issues in a new report, “Bending the Guardrails: U.S. War Powers after 7 October.” Tyler McBrien and Matt Gluck of Lawfare spoke with Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and an author of the report, and Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the Crisis Group’s report. They discussed the history relevant to the current war powers moment, how the Biden administration has continued to justify its operations without new legislative authority, and the possibility of war powers legal reform moving forward.

To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.