AP Syllabus focus:
‘Foreign policy tools include formal powers such as commander‑in‑chief authority and treaties, as well as informal tools like executive agreements that shape relations with other nations.’
Foreign policy is a shared-power arena, but the presidency has distinctive tools to act quickly and speak with one voice. Understanding treaties, commander-in-chief authority, and executive agreements shows how presidents shape international outcomes within constitutional limits.
Constitutional foundations of presidential foreign policy
The Constitution divides foreign affairs powers to prevent unilateral action while still allowing effective diplomacy.
Photograph of the U.S. Constitution held by the National Archives. It visually anchors the idea that presidential foreign-policy authority (including the Treaty Clause and commander-in-chief power in Article II) comes from a written constitutional framework rather than purely from political practice. Source
Key sources of authority
Article II assigns the president the roles of commander in chief, chief diplomat, and negotiator.
The president can receive ambassadors and communicate on behalf of the United States, helping the U.S. present a unified position abroad.
Many foreign policy actions rely on a mix of:
Formal powers explicitly listed in the Constitution (notably command and treaties)
Informal powers developed through practice and political necessity (notably executive agreements)
Commander-in-chief power (command authority)
Commander-in-chief authority gives the president operational control over the armed forces.
What command authority typically includes
Directing military strategy and deployment decisions through the defense chain of command
Responding to sudden crises (e.g., evacuations, protection of U.S. forces, limited strikes)
Coordinating with allies and military coalitions as part of ongoing international commitments
What command authority does not mean
Commander-in-chief power is strongest in tactical and operational decisions, but it is constrained by:
Domestic law (statutes governing the military and national security)
Funding limits (military actions depend on sustained resources)
Political accountability (public opinion and legislative backlash can shape what is sustainable)
Treaties
Treaties are a central formal diplomatic tool for structuring long-term relations with other states.
Treaty: A binding international agreement negotiated by the president and ratified with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
How treaties are made
The president (and the executive branch) negotiates terms with foreign governments.
The treaty is submitted to the Senate.
Senate approval requires a two-thirds vote of members present.
After approval, the president completes ratification and the U.S. assumes international obligations.
Why treaties matter
They can create durable commitments in areas such as security cooperation, trade frameworks, or arms control.
They signal credibility because the supermajority requirement implies broader political support.
Limits and tensions built into the treaty process
The Senate can shape outcomes by delaying, rejecting, or conditioning approval.
Because treaties require sustained support, presidents may look for alternative tools when the Senate is unlikely to provide the needed votes.
Executive agreements
Executive agreements are a major informal tool that can achieve diplomatic goals without the treaty ratification process.
Executive agreement: An international agreement made by the president that does not require two-thirds Senate ratification, often justified by existing constitutional authority or authority delegated by Congress.
Unlike treaties, executive agreements generally rest on:
The president’s inherent foreign affairs and recognition powers, and/or
Prior statutory authorisation that permits the executive branch to negotiate and implement specific arrangements
Why presidents use executive agreements
Speed and flexibility: easier to conclude and adapt to changing conditions
Practical governance: allows routine coordination on issues like security cooperation, administrative coordination, or technical standards
Political feasibility: avoids the high threshold required for treaty ratification
Key constraint to remember
Executive agreements operate within U.S. constitutional structure: they are shaped by domestic legal boundaries and can be politically contested if perceived as bypassing broader consent.
How these tools shape relations with other nations
Foreign policy tools often work together to produce leverage and continuity.
Common patterns in practice
A president may use commander-in-chief authority to manage an immediate crisis while diplomats pursue a longer-term framework.
A treaty may establish long-run rules, while executive agreements handle implementation details or time-sensitive coordination.
Because these tools differ in durability and political support, foreign counterparts often assess whether U.S. commitments are likely to survive leadership changes.
FAQ
Practice has varied, and constitutional text is not explicit.
Termination can involve political contestation, and disputes may hinge on whether Congress has legislated in the area or whether the treaty itself specifies exit procedures.
Reservations are conditions the Senate attaches to its consent.
They can:
narrow or interpret obligations
require certain understandings before the US accepts terms
They may trigger renegotiation if the other country will not accept them.
Many are reported through executive-branch processes and compiled in official publications.
However, timing, classification, and the agreement’s subject matter can affect transparency and public awareness.
The domestic legal effect can be contested.
In many situations, a later-in-time federal statute can limit or override implementation, raising separation-of-powers and compliance questions.
They can shape expectations, but durability varies.
Their staying power often depends on:
whether Congress embedded the policy in statute
ongoing political support
whether ending the agreement has significant diplomatic costs
Practice Questions
(2 marks) Describe one key difference between a treaty and an executive agreement in US foreign policy.
1 mark: Identifies that treaties require Senate consent by a two-thirds vote (or equivalent phrasing).
1 mark: Identifies that executive agreements do not require two-thirds Senate ratification (may be based on presidential authority and/or prior congressional authorisation).
(5 marks) Explain how the president can use commander-in-chief authority, treaties, and executive agreements to shape foreign policy, and explain one limitation on each tool.
1 mark: Explains commander-in-chief use (e.g., directing military operations/deployments in response to international events).
1 mark: Gives a limitation on commander-in-chief use (e.g., constrained by domestic law/funding/political backlash).
1 mark: Explains treaty use (e.g., making binding long-term international commitments).
1 mark: Gives a limitation on treaties (e.g., must obtain two-thirds Senate consent; may be delayed or rejected).
1 mark: Explains executive agreement use and a limitation (e.g., faster agreement-making without supermajority, but constrained by domestic legal bounds and political contestation).
