Congressional Inaction: The Ultimate Game of Tug of War

Winter 2026

Alina Gudeli

Edited By: Leah Smith

Since its foundation, the United States has taken military action in a multitude of international conflicts. Historians treat these conflicts as benchmarks in history, using them to explain varying social, political, and economic changes. While this past century has had a plethora of extremely influential military operations, the United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Although the Constitution grants Congress sole authority to declare war, its polarizing nature has caused many legislators to shy away from such harsh action, fearing a loss in reelection support from their constituents. During times of crisis, Congress passed legislation in order to grant the Executive with enough power to take action on their behalf. Over time, this shift in power has strayed from the Constitution’s design and allowed the Commander in Chief to execute both congressional and executive duties. Despite attempts from Congress to curb executive power through legislation like the War Powers Resolution (1973), presidents have been able to enhance their role in military decisionmaking and intervention through legal loopholes and public influence. The turn of the century focused American foreign policy on fighting the threat of terror, placing this at the center of reasoning for a multitude of military operations ordered by the Executive. Executive war powers were strengthened through the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 1991, 2001, and 2002. Initially utilized with the Gulf and Iraq Wars, its broad language allows extensive force without war declaration and has caused years-long conflicts that needed little, if any, congressional approval[1][2][3].

This historical abuse of legislation is becoming increasingly prevalent, as the U.S. is consistently among the key players in various international conflicts. As the president escalates and threatens illegal action against Venezuela and Greenland, Congress must check these moves from escalating into war. To curb the growing power imbalance between the Executive and Congress, it is imperative that the AUMF is repealed and that term limits are introduced for senators and representatives. A growing focus on partisan loyalty and reelection within Congress has cast their main function of citizen representation to the side. By limiting congressional incentive for inaction through the establishment of term limits, war powers can be restored to their appropriate executors, with the hope of ending rash military action abroad.

Despite its more recent intensification, the struggle for war powers between legislators and the president is nothing new. Post World War II foreign policy saw a series of complex, and often failed, attempts at communist intervention as the Cold War began to build. In the wake of the seemingly unending Korean War (1950-1953), the U.S. longed for a satisfying end to Communism elsewhere and set its sights on Vietnam. With mounting death tolls and weak justification for action, many Americans demanded an end to the war when Richard Nixon entered office in 1969. Although his intervention in peace talks during the end of Lyndon B. Johnson’s term secured him the win, it placed the task of ending the Vietnam War on his shoulders, something Nixon believed only he could achieve. Nixon’s presidency saw a shift in decision making due to the lack of trust he had in bureaucracy, the State Department, and Congress, leaving only his inner circle to check his actions. During this time, Nixon authorized bombings in Cambodia and sustained inexcusable losses in Vietnam, proving to Congress that it needed to increase its checks and balances on the Executive[4].

Thus, in 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. This legislation required congressional notice of any military action at least 48 hours in advance and gave Congress the ability to terminate an action after 60 or 90 days if it was deemed unnecessary[5]. While these mandatory steps intended to reinstate the constitutional role of Congress, the document’s vague language and congressional inaction caused few limitations to be enforced against the Executive.

The lack of effectiveness of this resolution is demonstrated by the current relationship between Congress and the White House. After decades of back and forth, a quick, necessary response to 9/11 granted President Bush the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) that is still used to this day.

While the AUMF has increased executive power, nothing has given the president a larger advantage than the media. Since the first televised presidential debate in 1960, every level of government was forced to realize how much power the people had when they were able to visually interact with the political landscape. Bush’s use of AUMFs to attack al-Qaeda in Iraq demonstrated to the public that the Executive holds power, completely disregarding Congress’s approval in the matter. Congressional inaction is indeed tied to this shift in public understanding. A skewed perception of presidential authority combined with media scrutiny of government action increased insecurity within congressional decision-making. Efforts to secure public and presidential approval to ensure reelection have caused Congress to opt out of potentially polarizing decisions, which consistently includes matters of war.

Although congressional inaction is not a new phenomenon, the current administration’s use of force demonstrates its severe consequences. The White House has demonstrated interest in intervention for some time, beginning with the missile strikes of alleged drug boats and seizing oil tankers. These actions culminated in an overnight intervention that captured Venezuela’s dictator and wife and killed hundreds. While the president asserted that he was simply responding to the threat of drug cartels in the United States, a lack of evidence and due process poses concern for illegal international action. Perhaps the true motive lay in the seizure of oil tankers prior to and after the intervention. In this case, the monetary benefits of increased control and ownership of oil led the U.S. to act in foreign affairs[6]. Such unprecedented measures taken primarily for economic gain should prompt Congress to enact new legislation that limits war powers in these areas of interest. In the weeks following the conflict, both the Senate and the House of Representatives made an attempt to curb further unsanctioned action with two resolutions. However, both resolutions failed to pass, with the Senate’s attempt requiring a tie-breaking ‘no’ vote from Vice President JD Vance[7]. While this result isn’t unsurprising, it is concerning. Now that the president has solidified his views on Venezuela with legitimate actions, partisan loyalty has made checks and balances nearly impossible to execute.

The resulting failed legislation reveals issues are split based on political affiliations, with Republicans largely siding with the Republican president. Adding fuel to the fire, 2026 is a massive election year, with both sides wanting the party majority to flip or hold the current state of Congress. Media attention towards highly explosive incidents like military action offer the public a better glimpse at their representative’s affiliations. This vote reflected partisan allegiance to the White House rather than an independent assessment of executive authority.

Instead of focusing on whether or not military action is in the best interest of the American people, both parties are prioritizing demonstrating loyalty or defiance of the current administration. This action goes against the Congress’s role to first and foremost be for the people.

While partisan loyalty is hard to control, what can be done is setting term limits for both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Altering the Constitution is a historically hard task to take on, but the current state of affairs has proven it necessary. Checks and balances do not only apply to the president, and it is now the responsibility of the people to check Congress through a new amendment. These term limits will ensure that reelection is not the driving force in decisionmaking among members of Congress. A two term limit for the president granted ten years in office, approximately two terms with a buffer period in the event of a succession. This amendment will allow senators to serve a maximum term of 14 years, totalling two terms with a two year buffer period. With the average term limit of the Senate as of January 3, 2025 totalling 11.2 years, this limit will not jeopardize the stability Congress hoped to secure with this institution[8]. Due to its closer interaction with citizens, the House of Representatives will be limited to 11 years, or five terms with a one year buffer period. These limits will bring significant reform to Congress in multiple ways. Their main purpose is to increase congressional action and accountability by no longer allowing legislators to view their positions as stable and enduring. Higher turnover rates will also reduce incumbents, limiting the public’s ability to not engage in other candidates. Furthermore, this has the potential to bolster voting midterm elections. When someone new has to be elected, as seen with presidential elections, voters may recognize that their vote determines their representation. Overall, this amendment will grant citizens the representation they deserve and will limit the congressional inaction often caused by fear of public opinion.

An alternative more immediate action would be to pass a new form of legislation that sets out strict guidelines on the level of military action that can take place before war will have to be formally declared. Unlike the War Powers Resolution, whose language was too vague to accomplish the necessary checks Congress needed to carry out, this resolution titled Balance of Military Action will focus on utilizing congressional fear of action in a beneficial way. To start, it will expand on the WPR by increasing the complexity of what is expected from the president. A detailed report with evidence will be required as to why the action is necessary one week in advance, with exceptions occurring only when the threat is an imminent danger to the United States. The 60 to 90 day rule will stay in place, but with one added stipulation: if Congress both accepts the military action and moves to continue it past this period, they will be required to declare war on that nation within the following 90 days. If this burden to directly accept or deny military action falls solely on Congress, it is expected that US foreign interference will fall. Congress, being focused on their public standing, will not want to deal with the inevitable complications and bad press that follow war. With this in mind, they will have no choice but to appropriately check the president. This legislation would reinforce the Constitution and lead to less military action, but there are two issues that still must be addressed. If this route is taken to check executive action, it not only reinforces reelection expectations, it capitalizes off of them. The cost of mending one problem in the federal government means accepting 22 year long terms in a position that overturns every two. Citizens deserve adequate and new representation as their districts and states grow and change, and this bill is unable to properly address this concern. Furthermore, the other pressing issue comes down to getting it passed. In order to be signed into law, this legislation must go through the two branches of government it moves to check, significantly diminishing the probability of success. Legislative action over an amendment might seem like an optimal alternative, but it solves fewer issues and faces the same resistance as the amendment. This bill is still beneficial in reducing unnecessary military action, but the amendment will appropriately target the root of this and many other problems by limiting congressional inaction.

While an amendment may seem a bit fervent to some, it is increasingly necessary to stabilize world order. Trump's actions in Venezuela may have rid its people of a dictator, but action against Greenland will devastate relations with Europe and effectively end NATO. Although Danish officials have made it clear that Greenland is not for sale, as it is under Danish sovereignty and protected by NATO, this has not stopped threats from the president to annex or invade the island. While security concerns regarding Russia and China in the Arctic aren’t entirely unfounded, the argument that the U.S. deserves the land and natural resources in exchange for their protection effectively bastardizes the international system[9]. The United States’ global dominance is already the reward for protecting its allies. Much like the response in Venezuela, multiple pieces of legislation have been introduced but are not presently in agreement with each other. The Make Greenland Great Again Act and the Greenland Annexation Act both move to support the president in his endeavors, while the Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act intends to prohibit the use of Federal funding for any form of acquisition of Greenland[10][11][12].

With a Republican House and Senate, the outcome of these resolutions are heavily dependent on the level of loyalty these congresspeople are willing to afford to the president’s whims. The decision to act in favor or against by military action in a stable, sovereign territory will inevitably influence voting outcomes in the 2026 congressional elections. These results will further determine the necessity for term limits. If the effects of international conflict with Europe are dismissed in the name of American expansion, no further proof is needed as to where loyalties lie within the Legislative Branch. A Constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure appropriate turnover occurs in both houses, and most importantly, to remind Congress who they truly represent. Limiting reelection is the key to ensuring congressional action, thereby limiting the recent additions of executive power. It is the hope that this amendment will halt reliance on AUMFs and instead embolden Congress to appropriately check the president and act in times of conflict.

References

[1] Text - H.J.Res.77 - 102nd Congress (1991-1992): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, H.J.Res.77, 102nd Cong. (1991), https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-joint-resolution/77/text.

[2] Text - S.J.Res.23 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force, S.J.Res.23, 107th Cong. (2001), https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text.

[3] Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, H.J.Res.114, 107th Cong. (2002), https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text.

[4] Kuzma, L, Baird, T. (Year). A Madman’s Appetite–Operation Menu: The Nixon Administration and the Secret Bombing in Cambodia. Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy.

[5] War Powers Resolution: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate (2026), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47603.

[6] Jeyaretnam M, Guzman C de. What’s happening with the U.S. and Venezuela, explained. Time 2026. https://time.com/7344628/us-venezuela-trump-maduro-oil-drugs-war-explainer-questions-answered/

[7] Breslow J. Senate Republicans block Venezuela War Powers Resolution. NPR 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/14/g-s1-106093/senate-war-powers-venezuela.

[8] Congressional Careers: Service Tenure and Patterns of Member Service, 1789-2025 (2026), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41545.

[9] Northam J. Where is the threat from Russia and China in the Arctic? NPR 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/25/nx-s1-5682932/where-is-the-threat-from-russia-and-china-in-the-arctic.

[10] H.R.361 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Make Greenland Great Again Act, H.R.361, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/361.

[11] H.R.7012 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, H.R.7012, 119th Cong. (2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7012.

[12] H.R.7013 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R.7013, 119th Cong. (2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7013.