How can Congress design funding riders or NDAA language to more effectively constrain the president’s use of force?
Executive summary
Congress can use funding riders and NDAA language to reshape presidential use of force by tying money to narrow, enforceable conditions, stricter reporting, and statutory sunsets—while recognizing limits: courts and the executive can resist, and enforcement depends on political will and oversight (War Powers debates and recent AUMF repeal efforts illustrate the leverage and limits of statute) [1] [2] [3].
1. Redraft appropriations riders as precise, conditional funding bans
Drafting riders that prohibit "the obligation or expenditure of funds" for specific operations or geographic theaters—modeled on targeted prohibitions like those proposed to bar force against Iran or Venezuela—gives Congress direct leverage because funding is its clearest constitutional tool, but those riders must be narrowly tailored to avoid vagueness and litigation and must anticipate executive workarounds such as reprogramming or impoundment (War Powers Resolution debates and recent bills seeking to bar force against Iran and Venezuela show the legislative approach) [1] [2].
2. Use NDAA authority to create operational gates and reporting requirements
The NDAA routinely contains programmatic limits and reporting triggers—sections in the FY2026 NDAA blocked restructuring until a plan was submitted and added reporting and implementation conditions—which provide a template for gating military action with mandatory pre-action reports, risk assessments, and certifications by secretaries or commanders before funds may be used, giving Congress documentable oversight to enforce through withholding or rescission [3].
3. Pair sunsets for broad authorizations with express AUMF repeal
Sunsetting or repealing old Authorizations for Use of Military Force removes statutory cover for wide executive interpretation; Congress has moved to sunset the 2001 AUMF and repealed the 2002 Iraq AUMF via NDAA work, demonstrating a legislative path to shrink executive baselines for force, but sunset language must be coupled with transition rules to avoid unintended operational gaps (H.R. 6751 and NDAA actions show repeal and sunset are feasible tools) [2] [4].
4. Anticipate and block administrative evasion—impoundment and reprogramming
Recent reporting documents an unprecedented executive resort to the Impoundment Control Act and other tactics to withhold or redirect funds, meaning robust riders must include anti-impoundment clauses, mandatory OMB reporting, and expedited judicial review provisions so that unilateral executive withholding cannot nullify congressional restraints (the CBPP documented misuse of the Impoundment Control Act in 2025) [5].
5. Leverage appropriations' granular directives and bipartisan norms to build enforcement
Congress routinely uses appropriations to micromanage policy via detailed spending directives; expanding those line-item controls and combining them with political enforcement—public hearings, conditioning nominee confirmations, and linking defense authorizations to other priorities—creates reputational and procedural costs for executives who flout limits, and recent bipartisan spending packages show appropriators still assert detailed directives to reassert congressional control (Patty Murray and appropriations reporting) [6] [7].
6. Counterarguments, political realities, and judicial uncertainty
Legal scholars and some Members argue that forcing rigid preconditions risks hampering commanders and exceeds Congress's ability to micromanage national defense, and the executive can claim emergency commander-in-chief powers or invoke statutes like the Insurrection Act for domestic uses—an ambiguity highlighted by recent threats to invoke that Act during protests—so legislation must balance operational flexibility with strong reporting and narrow definitions to survive courts and crises (constitutional debates in War Powers and Insurrection Act reporting) [1] [8].
7. Practical packaging: combine riders, NDAA sections, and oversight teeth
The most durable approach mixes (a) explicit, narrowly drawn appropriations prohibitions on spending for named actions or regions; (b) NDAA gating clauses requiring certification, risk assessments, and timelines; (c) express repeal or sunset of broad AUMFs; and (d) enforcement mechanisms—anti-impoundment language, expedited judicial review, and mandatory congressional briefings—because history shows single tools are often circumvented while layered constraints create friction points that are harder to evade (examples across appropriations, NDAA, AUMF repeal, and impoundment misuse demonstrate both tactics and gaps) [3] [2] [5].