Fact check: How have subsequent presidents, such as Trump and Biden, utilized executive power for military action?

1. Summary of the results

Both Trump and Biden have utilized executive power for military action following a well-established pattern of presidential behavior that has developed over decades. Trump ordered strikes against Iran without congressional approval, which legal experts argue may constitute an abuse of power since the Constitution grants only Congress the authority to declare war and there was no imminent threat to the United States ^[1]. The Trump administration justified these actions by citing Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president power to direct US military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad ^[1].

Biden similarly cited Article II of the Constitution in 2021 after ordering strikes in Iraq and Syria ^[2]. Both presidents have followed a pattern where presidents have routinely ordered military action without Congress' approval, which has become standard practice over the last 25 years ^[2].

Regarding executive orders more broadly, Biden has actually signed fewer executive orders than Trump during comparable periods, contradicting claims that Biden has bypassed Congress more than other presidents ^[3]. Experts found no evidence to suggest Biden has bypassed Congress more than other presidents ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to acknowledge the broader historical context of presidential war powers erosion. Democratic and Republican presidents have sidestepped Congress for strikes or military action for decades, including President George H.W. Bush's use of force against Panama and President Barack Obama's use of air strikes in Libya ^[1]. This pattern means that the requirement for congressional approval before going to war has been effectively amended out of the Constitution by precedent and judicial and congressional acquiescence ^[4].

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to provide a check on presidential power to involve the United States in military action without congressional consent ^[2], but critics view the War Powers Act as deeply ineffective in limiting presidential war authority ^[5]. The executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over war powers roles throughout US history, despite the constitutional separation of powers ^[5].

Presidents have found ways to stretch the envelope of presidential authority to use force, even though limits are set out in the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and the United Nations Charter ^[2]. The current situation favors Trump in arguing for his right to commit troops unilaterally due to established precedent ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no explicit misinformation but lacks important context about the systematic erosion of congressional war powers that has occurred across multiple administrations. By focusing specifically on Trump and Biden, the question might inadvertently suggest these presidents are unique in their use of executive military power, when in fact this has become routine behavior among presidents ^[2].

The question also doesn't acknowledge that experts say there is most likely little lawmakers will do about presidential military actions taken without congressional approval ^[2], which represents a significant shift from the Framers' original intent for Congress to have sole authority to declare war ^[4].