By Lee H. Hamilton
It caught my attention recently when two senators issued a news release about trying to repeal laws that authorize the president to use military force against Iraq. This is a positive effort for several reasons. It deserves support.
First, as the senators, Indiana Republican Todd Young and Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, point out, the authorizations are obsolete. They date from the Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq War in 2002. As Young says, “Today, Iraq is a partner, not an adversary. It’s time for our laws to reflect that reality.”
This may seem like legislative housekeeping, but it’s more than that. Repealing the authorizations would be a small but meaningful step toward asserting the rightful place of Congress at a time when it has ceded too much influence. The president has broad authority over military force, but the Congress plays a vital role in foreign policy. Under the Constitution, it passes laws, declares war, controls funding and conducts oversight of the executive branch.
It also matters that this effort is bipartisan. It often seems that Washington is hopelessly divided, and that Democrats and Republicans never work together. In fact, there’s more cooperation than the public realizes, as this legislation exemplifies. Both the Senate and House have included it in their respective versions of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The question is whether it will be part of the final bill.
Both these factors, asserting the role of Congress and working in a bipartisan fashion, align with what Americans expect from our representatives. We want them to deliver policies that make sense, and most of us don’t care which side gets credit. We also have become skeptical about military adventures. The Gulf War was a quick success, and the Iraq War was initially popular, but Americans eventually grew tired of Middle East conflicts.
We rightly look to Congress, the branch of government that is closest to the people, to put the brakes on executive overreach. During my time in the U.S. House, I found the American people respected our role. They often favored Congress in its inevitable tug-of-war with the president. Americans may bash Congress as an institution, but they want it to do its job.
When it comes to bipartisanship, there’s no question that Americans are deeply divided on some issues, but there’s evidence that we’re less polarized than it often seems. Public opinion surveys find that around half of Americans describe themselves as moderate or only somewhat liberal or conservative. Their beliefs often don’t fall neatly on a left-to-right political spectrum.
In my experience, voters may identify with a political party, but they want their elected officials to think for themselves; they don’t want them to take marching orders from party bosses. They value independence and they want officials to work hard and get things done. Most like seeing Republicans and Democrats working together.
During my time as an elected official, I met with voters almost continually. I was constantly asking myself: What do they want from government? What are their priorities? What is most important to them? Often those questions were hard to answer. People are complicated, after all. Their views and priorities can change from day to day, depending on their experience and what’s in the news. It’s one of the things that makes working in government so interesting and so challenging.
That said, I’m confident there are things that voters agree on. They don’t want America to go to war without deliberation. They want Congress to do its job, including its oversight role. They want their representatives to work for their constituents, not for their party. They support officials who make government work, even – and maybe especially – if it means putting partisanship aside.
More commentaries from Rep. Hamilton are available on the Hamilton on Foreign Policy news page.