Fact check: What are the historical examples of US presidents using military force without congressional approval?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a extensive pattern of US presidents using military force without congressional approval spanning multiple decades and both political parties. The historical examples include:

Modern Era Examples:

• Donald Trump's strikes in Iran and missile strike in Syria ^{[1] [2]}
• Barack Obama's military campaign in Libya ^{[1] [2]}
• Bill Clinton's unilateral actions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo ^[3]
• George W. Bush's invocation of war powers after the September 11, 2001 attacks ^[2]

Earlier Historical Examples:

• Harry Truman's use of a UN Security Council resolution to justify the Korean War ^[3]
• Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia ^[3]
• Jimmy Carter's attempt to rescue hostages from Iran in 1980 ^[2]

The sources indicate this has become "routine" behavior, with presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt successfully circumventing congressional restraints on their military actions ^[3]. Despite the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was designed to limit presidential military authority, sitting presidents have continued to initiate military actions while merely submitting reports to Congress after the fact ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements:

Constitutional and Legal Framework:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was specifically passed to limit presidential military authority, yet it has proven largely ineffective in practice ^[4]. Notably, Speaker Mike Johnson has asserted that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, suggesting ongoing political disagreement about the legal framework itself ^[5].

Bipartisan Nature:

The sources emphasize that this pattern spans "presidents of both parties" ^[3], with specific mention that "former Presidents Biden, Obama, and Clinton" all launched military operations without congressional approval ^[5]. This bipartisan reality challenges any narrative that frames this as a partisan issue.

Institutional Benefits:

The executive branch clearly benefits from maintaining broad military authority, as it allows for rapid response without the delays inherent in congressional deliberation. Congressional leaders like Mike Johnson benefit politically by challenging these actions when convenient while potentially supporting similar executive authority when their party holds the presidency ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual in nature, simply requesting historical examples without making claims about legality or appropriateness. However, there are potential areas where bias could emerge in responses:

Framing Bias:

The question could be interpreted to suggest this practice is either problematic or normal, depending on the respondent's political perspective. The sources show that both Democratic and Republican presidents have engaged in this practice ^{[5] [3]}, making any partisan framing misleading.

Scope Limitations:

The question doesn't specify timeframe or scale of military action, which could lead to incomplete or selective examples. The analyses show this practice extends back to at least Franklin D. Roosevelt and includes actions ranging from hostage rescue attempts to full military campaigns ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

Legal Complexity:

The question doesn't acknowledge the ongoing constitutional debate about presidential war powers, with some officials like Mike Johnson arguing the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional ^[5]. This legal ambiguity means the premise of "without congressional approval" may itself be disputed depending on one's constitutional interpretation.