Evaluate the view that US foreign policy is dominated as much by Congress as by the
presidency. (30)
Foreign policy is arguably an exceptional area in which the President can be seen to
dominate, as described by Wilblavsky’s idea of a ‘dual presidency’, whereby there are
effectively two Presidents: a powerful foreign policy President and a constrained
domestic one. On the one hand, it may be argued that neither the President nor
Congress fully dominate foreign policy, and their influence over it constantly changes,
so their relationship over foreign policy is more of an ‘invitation to struggle.’ However, it
is arguably more convincing to suggest that since the end of World War II, Presidents
have exercised powers beyond constitutional limits when it comes to foreign policy, thus
the balance of power skews decisively towards the President rather than Congress.
It can be argued that the President is unable to dominate US foreign policy, as
Congress is given significant checks over the President in the constitution. Article 1,
Section 8 of the US constitution grants Congress the highly important foreign policy
power of declaring war, such as the historical use of this power in declaring war against
Japan in 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour. Furthermore, due to the 1973 War
Powers Act, Congressional pressure can bring an end to US involvement in war, as the
President shows a deference to Congressional authority, such as Clinton withdrawing
troops from Somalia in 1994. Further to this, the Senate has the important check if
ratifying treaties, which requires ⅔ of the Senate to consent, thereby limiting the
President’s goals in the international sphere. For example, a UN disability rights treaty
was rejected by the Senate in 2012, despite Obama signing the treaty in 2009 and
advocating for it. This shows that Congress has a number of constitutional powers that
can restrict the President’s ability to dominate foreign policy. However, it is more
convincing to argue that Presidents have the constitutional power to dominate foreign
policy. This is shown in particular through the President’s Commander-in-Chief role
(specified in Article 2 of the constitution), and this enables them to act unilaterally,
initiating military action without Congress’ approval. For example, Trump’s decision to
instruct his cabinet to make arrangements to strike the Houthi rebels in March 2025, as
revealed by the Signal-gate scandal, shows that the President can initiate military action
at will. This has been seen continuously under the Trump presidency, with the
continuation of his ‘America First’ doctrine from his first term, leading the US to impose
tariffs on many traditional allies, withdraw from international bodies like the UN Human
Rights Council, dismantle USAID and to strike nuclear sites in Iran. On balance, it is
more convincing to argue that the President dominates foreign policy, as the President
is able to direct their foreign policy due to key constitutional powers of being
Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
presidency. (30)
Foreign policy is arguably an exceptional area in which the President can be seen to
dominate, as described by Wilblavsky’s idea of a ‘dual presidency’, whereby there are
effectively two Presidents: a powerful foreign policy President and a constrained
domestic one. On the one hand, it may be argued that neither the President nor
Congress fully dominate foreign policy, and their influence over it constantly changes,
so their relationship over foreign policy is more of an ‘invitation to struggle.’ However, it
is arguably more convincing to suggest that since the end of World War II, Presidents
have exercised powers beyond constitutional limits when it comes to foreign policy, thus
the balance of power skews decisively towards the President rather than Congress.
It can be argued that the President is unable to dominate US foreign policy, as
Congress is given significant checks over the President in the constitution. Article 1,
Section 8 of the US constitution grants Congress the highly important foreign policy
power of declaring war, such as the historical use of this power in declaring war against
Japan in 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour. Furthermore, due to the 1973 War
Powers Act, Congressional pressure can bring an end to US involvement in war, as the
President shows a deference to Congressional authority, such as Clinton withdrawing
troops from Somalia in 1994. Further to this, the Senate has the important check if
ratifying treaties, which requires ⅔ of the Senate to consent, thereby limiting the
President’s goals in the international sphere. For example, a UN disability rights treaty
was rejected by the Senate in 2012, despite Obama signing the treaty in 2009 and
advocating for it. This shows that Congress has a number of constitutional powers that
can restrict the President’s ability to dominate foreign policy. However, it is more
convincing to argue that Presidents have the constitutional power to dominate foreign
policy. This is shown in particular through the President’s Commander-in-Chief role
(specified in Article 2 of the constitution), and this enables them to act unilaterally,
initiating military action without Congress’ approval. For example, Trump’s decision to
instruct his cabinet to make arrangements to strike the Houthi rebels in March 2025, as
revealed by the Signal-gate scandal, shows that the President can initiate military action
at will. This has been seen continuously under the Trump presidency, with the
continuation of his ‘America First’ doctrine from his first term, leading the US to impose
tariffs on many traditional allies, withdraw from international bodies like the UN Human
Rights Council, dismantle USAID and to strike nuclear sites in Iran. On balance, it is
more convincing to argue that the President dominates foreign policy, as the President
is able to direct their foreign policy due to key constitutional powers of being
Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
