Presidential Powers

Presidential Powers

The balance of powers between the three branches of the US government have ebbed and flowed over the nation’s history, but experts agree that the power of the Presidency has significantly increased over the last several decades. This is a result of Presidents taking more power and Congress not taking action to reign them in, as well as Congress explicitly giving Presidents more authority through legislation. What powers the President should have with regards to domestic and foreign affairs remains an intense topic of debate.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
General Briefing and Arguments Survey: PPC, March 2025 Briefing Respondents were presented a briefing on independent agencies: Federal agencies are government organizations created by Congress and signed into law by Presidents, to fulfill a specific mission. For example, the Department of Defense to defend the nation, or the Food and Drug Administration to ensure medicines are safe. Agencies enforce the laws passed by Congress, and create policies and regulations to fulfill the mission that Congress gave them. Most federal agencies are led by a single person, who is appointed by the President and must be confirmed by Congress. The President can remove the leader of these agencies for any reason. Some federal agencies were designed differently. They are called independent agencies. They are meant to operate, on a day-to-day basis, more independently from both the President and Congress. They are often run by a group of people – known as a commission – made up of members of both parties. The idea behind this is that it allows these agencies to make long-term plans that are more free from short-term politics and partisanship. Some well-known independent agencies are the Federal Reserve, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Elections Commission. They were then informed of the most important features that differentiate independent agencies from other federal agencies: In most cases they are headed by a multi-member commission, rather than one person like other agencies. This commission must include members of both parties, and one party can not dominate the board (e.g. if there are five members on the board, no more than three can be from one party.) In many cases, the majority of commissioners are of the same party as the President.The terms of commissioners are staggered so that they are often selected by different Presidents. This is to ensure that leadership does not completely change every time there is a new President. Presidents decide who should be the head of the commission, who is in charge of setting the agency’s agenda, and has significant power over final decisions Unlike other federal agencies, Presidents can not fire commissioners of independent agencies because of policy disagreements. They can fire commissioners if they fail to do their job or violate the law. Perhaps most central Presidents can not directly change or veto their decisions of independent agencies. This is in contrast to Congress. Congress can pass laws to change their mission, override their regulations, vote to remove a commissioner, or even abolish the agency altogether. If the President thinks an agency is overstepping its authority it has more limited options: it can ask Congress to intervene or it can sue the agency in a federal court. But the President cannot intervene directly. Arguments Respondents were told there is a debate about whether currently independent agencies should: Be put under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn the agencies’ decisions and remove and replace their commissioners, or Continue to be independent from direct Presidential control, though still accountable to Congress. The arguments in favor of putting independent agencies under the direct control of Presidents were found convincing by bipartisan majorities of around two in three. The arguments against were found convincing by larger and more bipartisan majorities of over three in four. Related Standard Polling Standard polling has found a majority opposed to Presidents taking direct control over independent agencies, with significant partisan differences and a very large one in four not taking a position: Asked whether they, “generally consider the following actions by a U.S. president to be,” acceptable or unacceptable, “asserting control over previously independent federal government agencies,” was found unacceptable by a majority of 57%, acceptable by just 24%, and a larger percentage said “not sure” (19%). Among Democrats, a very large majority of 84% said it was unacceptable. Among Republicans, just 26% said unacceptable, a little under half said acceptable (47%), and over a quarter were “not sure” (27%). (YouGov, April 2025)

	Presidents should NOT have the power to dictate the policy or fire the commissioners of agencies that were designed by Congress to be independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A large bipartisan majority of 67% favors Congress continuing to have sole authority over the ability to remove an agency’s independence, by passing a new law that the President would need to sign. This includes 52% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats and 73% of independents. More Details Briefing After evaluating whether specific independent agencies should be kept independent or put under direct Presidential control (see below), respondents were told: Right now, Congress is the only branch of government that has the authority to create agencies and decide whether they are independent from direct Presidential control. In order for an independent agency to be created, Congress needs to pass a law, and the President needs to sign it. Presidents can also veto that law, which then requires two thirds of Congress to overturn, but this virtually never happens. It is also only within Congress’ authority to remove the independence of an agency. They would have to pass a new law to do so, and it would need to be signed by the President. As stated previously, the idea behind making agencies independent is that it allows them to make long-term plans that are more free from short-term politics and partisanship. There has been a debate about whether this should change so that Presidents have the power to remove the independence of an agency and put it under the direct control of the President, without Congressional approval. Arguments The argument in favor of Presidents having the power to put independent agencies directly under their control was found convincing by a small majority, including seven in ten Republicans, but less than half of Democrats and independents. The argument for Congress continuing to be the only branch with the sole authority to change the independent status of agencies was found convincing by a much larger majority of over three in four, including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think: Presidents should have the power to remove the independence of agencies on their own, or Congress should continue to have the sole power to remove the independence of agencies, by passing a new law that the President would then need to sign. A large bipartisan majority of 67% favors Congress continuing to have sole authority over an agency’s independence, including 52% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats and 73% of independents. Demographics Related Standard Polling Standard polling has found a majority opposed to Presidents taking direct control over independent agencies, with significant partisan differences and a very large one in four not taking a position: Asked whether they, “generally consider the following actions by a U.S. president to be,” acceptable or unacceptable, “asserting control over previously independent federal government agencies,” was found unacceptable by a majority of 57%, acceptable by just 24%, and a larger percentage said “not sure” (19%). Among Democrats, a very large majority of 84% said it was unacceptable. Among Republicans, just 26% said unacceptable, a little under half said acceptable (47%), and over a quarter were “not sure” (27%). (YouGov, April 2025)
	Keep the Federal Communications Commission independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 66% favor keeping the Federal Communications Commission independent from direct Presidential control, including 52% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 74% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the Federal Communications Commission: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates communications across radio, television, and the internet. Its mission is to ensure that communication services in the country are reliable and accessible to everyone. Here are some of the key things the FCC does: Sets rules for radio and TV stations to make sure they follow laws about content. For example, making sure TV and radio programming watched by children does not show excessive violence or sexual activity. If the FCC determines that a company is failing to comply with laws, they can revoke their license (this is very rare). Establish and enforce regulations to prevent fraud and unfair billing practices. Promote fair competition among radio, TV and internet providers, by working to prevent monopolies. Help coordinate emergency alert systems that warn people about natural disasters, Amber Alerts, and national security threats. Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the Federal Communications Commission under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its commissioners, or Keeping the FCC independent from direct Presidential control, though still accountable to Congress A bipartisan majority of 66% favored keeping the FCC independent from direct Presidential control, including 52% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 74% of independents. Demographics
	Keep the Securities and Exchange Commission independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 67% favor keeping the SEC independent from direct Presidential control, including 54% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 72% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the Securities and Exchange Commission: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversees and regulates financial markets, including the stock market. It was created after the stock market crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression. Here are the SEC’s most important functions: Work to prevent stock market crashes, by monitoring financial companies and creating regulations to limit risky practices. Enforce rules to prevent fraud, insider trading, and misleading financial statements that could harm investors. Promote transparency by requiring financial companies to publicly disclose information about their investments Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the Securities and Exchange Commission under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its commissioners, or Keeping the Securities and Exchange Commission independent from direct Presidential control, though still accountable to Congress A bipartisan majority of 67% favored keeping the SEC independent from direct Presidential control, including 54% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 72% of independents. Demographics
	Keep the National Labor Relations Board independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 65% favor keeping the NLRB independent from direct Presidential control, including 52% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats and 79% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the National Labor Relations Board: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces laws related to workers. Here are the NLRB’s most important functions: Enforce laws that protect workers from being punished for collective bargaining, joining unions, or striking. Supervise worker elections where workers decide whether to form or join a union, to help ensure that workers can vote free of any intimidation by their bosses or union officials. Help resolve disputes between workers, unions, and employers, so they do not have to go to court. Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the National Labor Relations Board under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its commissioners, or Keeping the National Labor Relations Board independent from direct Presidential control, though still accountable to Congress A bipartisan majority of 65% favored keeping the NLRB independent from direct Presidential control, including 52% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats and 79% of independents. Demographics
	Keep the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 67% favor keeping the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions independent from direct Presidential control, including 53% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats and 74% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the Federal Reserve, specifically its regulatory functions: The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its mission is to promote a stable economy by managing the country’s money supply and banking system. The Federal Reserve has many important functions. We are only going to focus on a few of them here, known as its regulatory functions: Regulate and monitor banks to make sure they follow rules and prevent risky banking practices that could cause economic crises. Respond to financial crises by providing emergency support to banks and businesses to prevent economic collapse. Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its commissioners, or Keeping the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions independent from direct Presidential control, but still accountable to Congress A bipartisan majority of 67% favored keeping the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions independent from direct Presidential control, including 53% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats and 74% of independents. Demographics
	Keep the Federal Election Commission independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 69% favor keeping the FEC independent from direct Presidential control, including 57% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 78% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the Federal Election Commission: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) enforces laws about money in federal elections. Here are the FEC’s main functions: Enforce rules about campaign finance, such as how money can be raised and spent in elections for President and Congress, and how much individuals, businesses, and political groups can donate. Promote transparency in all campaign finance donations and spending Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the Federal Election Commission under the direct control of Presidents so they can: change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its commissioners, or Keeping the Federal Election Commission independent from direct Presidential control, but still accountable to Congress A bipartisan majority of 69% favored keeping the FEC independent from direct Presidential control, including 57% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 78% of independents. Demographics
	Keep the Office of Special Counsel independent from direct Presidential control Survey: PPC, March 2025 A bipartisan majority of 67% favor keeping the OSC independent from direct Presidential control, including 55% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats and 73% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed about the Office of Special Counsel, which has a different leadership structure than the other independent agencies: Some independent agencies are led by a single director and not a multi-member commission. Like other independent agencies, these directors can not be fired for the President for any reason. One such agency is the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which investigates and enforces rules about federal workers in the Executive Branch. Here are the OSC’s main functions: Protect the merit-based system of the federal workforce, by ensuring fair hiring practices through enforcing laws against discrimination–based on race, gender, or political beliefs–and nepotism (hiring close friends or family). Protect whistleblowers (federal employees who have reported government wrongdoing) from being fired or retaliated against. Enforce laws that limit political activity by federal employees while on the job, to help ensure the federal workforce is nonpartisan. Arguments Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor: Putting the Office of Special Counsel under the direct control of Presidents so they can change or overturn its decisions, and remove and replace its director, or Keeping the Office of Special Counsel independent from direct Presidential control A bipartisan majority of 67% favored keeping the OSC independent from direct Presidential control, including 55% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats and 73% of independents. Demographics
WAR POWERS

	Automatically cut off funding to military operations initiated by the President after 60 days, outside the framework of a declaration of war or a response to an attack on the US, unless Congress votes in favor of continuing it Survey: PPC, January 2022 A bipartisan majority of 58% favor a proposal to give Congress more control over military operations initiated by a President, by requiring the President to get the approval of a simple majority of Congress to continue the operation for longer than 60 days, rather than the current system which requires a veto-proof majority (two-thirds). A majority of Republicans (53%), Democrats (62%) and independents (58%) favor the proposal, as do those in every type of congressional districts, from very red (59%) to very blue (62%). More Details Briefing Respondents were first introduced to context of the debate over the roles of Congress and the President regarding war powers, as follows: The Constitution gives both Congress and the President a role in the use of military force: *Congress is responsible for funding the military and has the power to declare war.* *The President is the Commander in Chief of the military.* A less clear area is when the President might use military force outside of the framework of a declaration of war. To answer this question, in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Act. It states that the President may at times use military force without first getting Congressional approval. But if Congress does not vote in favor of continuing the action within 60 days, the President must stop the military action and withdraw the forces. Nonetheless, all Presidents since then have taken the position that, though they may ask Congress for approval, because the President is the Commander in Chief, they do not need Congressional approval to use military force. They were informed that Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama had violated the War Powers Acts, and that: In each case, Congress had the option of taking an action to cut off funding for the military operation. However, if Congress were to do that, the President could veto such an action. Then it would require two thirds of the votes in both houses of Congress to override that veto. This is politically difficult to achieve. They were then provided the specific proposal: Currently, there is a proposal that would make it more possible for Congress to stop a President’s military operation. Rather than Congress having to vote to stop a military operation--and possibly be vetoed--the military operation could only continue after 60 days if a majority in Congress were to vote in favor. If Congress does not vote to continue the operation within the 60 days, funding will be automatically cut off. That way the President could not veto this cut-off. (This would not apply to military actions in response to a direct attack on the US or its military.) Arguments All of the pro and con arguments were found convincing by bipartisan majorities; but the pro arguments were found convincing by about ten percentage points more people than the cons. The first pro argument exclaimed that our government only functions on checks and balances, and that right now, they are largely absent when it comes to war powers. Seventy-six percent found this convincing (GOP 72%, Dem 81%, Ind 70%). The first con argument rebutted this idea by stating that the Constitution clearly gives the President, as Commander in Chief, full power over military activities. Sixty-four percent found this convincing (GOP 68%, Dem 62%, Ind 59%). The second pro emphasized that use of the military has too many consequences for our foreign policy to be left in the hands of one person, and was found convincing by 71% (GOP 66%, Dem 77%, Ind 68%). The con countered by proclaiming that having just one person in charge is necessary to take quick, decisive action to protect US security, and was found convincing by 60% (GOP 64%, Dem 57%, Ind 59%). Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor the following: Make it more possible for Congress to stop a President’s military operation. Rather than Congress having to vote to stop a military operation - and possibly be vetoed - the military operation could only continue after 60 days if a majority in Congress were to vote in favor. If Congress does not vote to continue the operation within the 60 days, funding will be automatically cut off. That way the President could not veto this cut-off. (This would not apply to military actions in response to a direct attack on the US or its military.) A bipartisan majority of 58% favored the proposal, including 53% of Republicans, 62% of Democrats and 58% of independents. An analysis of voters by congressional district type, broken out using Cook’s PVI ratings, shows that majorities in all types of districts are in favor, from very red (59%) to very blue (62%). Demographics Status of Legislation The proposal is based on the War Powers Enforcement Act by Rep. Sherman (D) and the National Security Powers Act of 2021 by Sen. Murphy (D). A similar proposal was in the National Security Reforms and Accountability Act by Rep. James McGovern (D), which would cut off funding after 20 days, rather than 60. None of the bills made it out of committee.
	Repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which has given Presidents broad authority to initiate military operations against any country, group or person associated with the September 11th attacks Survey: PPC, January 2022 A bipartisan majority of 59% favor repealing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which has given Presidents broad authority to initiate military operations against any country, organization or person who was involved with or helped those involved with the September 11th attacks. Support for repealing includes 65% of Democrats, 63% of independents, and a bare majority of Republicans (52%). Majorities of voters in very red (55%) to very blue (66%) congressional districts are in favor. More Details Briefing Respondents were introduced to the context of the proposal as follows: As you may recall, shortly after the 9/11 attacks Congress passed a resolution that gave the president (who was then George W. Bush) the authority to use military force against: any country, organization or foreign individual that was involved with the 9/11 attacks, or has helped the organizations involved with the 9/11 attacks. What is controversial is that over the last two decades the 2001 AUMF has been repeatedly used as the legal basis for using military force against organizations that were not involved with 9/11, but have similar beliefs and readiness to use terrorist methods. Since it was passed, the 2001 AUMF has been used by Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden as the legal basis for dozens of military operations against various organizations in various countries around the world. These include extended operations (longer than 60 days) in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq. The proposal was then presented: A proposal has been put forward to repeal the 2001 AUMF. As discussed above, the President would still have the power to use military force to defend against organizations deemed an imminent threat. But to have an operation that would last longer than 60 days the President would need to get a new AUMF from Congress. Arguments Both pro and con arguments were found convincing by bipartisan majorities. The pro argument proclaimed that the 2001 AUMF has been a “blank check” for warfare and has been used beyond its original intent. Three-quarters found this convincing (GOP 69%, Dem 81%, Ind 73%). The con argument declared that it has been necessary to defend the US against terrorist forces, and was found convincing by 55%, including 61% of Republicans and a bare majority of Democrats (52%). Independents were divided. Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor the following proposal: Repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which has given the president the authority to use military force against: any country, organization or foreign individual that was involved with the 9/11 attacks, or has helped the organizations involved with the 9/11 attacks A bipartisan majority of 59% favored repealing the 2001 AUMF, including 65% of Democrats, 63% of independents, and a bare majority of Republicans (52%), Majorities of voters in very red (55%) to very blue (66%) congressional districts were in favor. Demographics Related Standard Polls A standard poll by Data for Progress and YouGov (2019) which gave respondents information about the 2001 AUMF and presented both sides of the debate, found a plurality wanted to change the law, including a majority of Democrats but just a fifth of Republicans. Many respondents said they were not sure: Respondents were told that, “In 2001, Congress passed a law giving the President power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" behind the September 11th attacks. Since then, the law has been used to justify military action in other areas. Supporters of the law say that getting Congressional authorization to fight terrorists is too difficult and the law should stay in place. Opponents say that the original perpetrators of 9/11 have been defeated, and the law has made going to war in new countries too easy.” Then, asked whether, “you think the current law should stay in place, or should the law change,” about half said the law should be changed (49%, Republicans 19%, Democrats 67%). A third said it should stay in place (33%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 15%), and 18% said they are not sure. (Data for Progress/YouGov Aug 2019) A large bipartisan majority favored President Obama asking for Congressional approval to continue using force against ISIS, authority which was later justified using the 2001 AUMF: Told that, “President Obama has asked Congress for the authority to continue to use military force against ISIS,” respondents were asked whether they, “think he was right to ask Congress for that authority or should he have the option of continuing to use military force against ISIS without authorization from Congress?” Seventy seven percent thought he was right to ask for authority (Republicans 80%, Democrats 74%). (CNN/ORC February 2015) Status of Legislation The proposal was in H.R. 255 by Rep. Lee (D), as well as the National Security Powers Act of 2021 by Sen. Murphy (D), which would sunset several AUMFs. Neither bill made it out of committee.
	Require any arms sale over $14 million to be approved by a simple majority of Congress Survey: PPC, January 2022 A bipartisan majority of 61% favor the proposal to give Congress more control over arms sales by requiring a simple majority of Congress to approve any arms sale over $14 million, rather than the current system which requires a veto-proof majority (two-thirds) to stop an arms sale proposed by the President. Majorities of Republicans (56%), Democrats (68%) and independents (61%) favor this proposal. More Details Briefing Respondents were introduced to context of the debate about the roles of Congress and the President regarding arms sales, as follows: Now let’s turn to another issue: the sale of US-made military equipment -- such as planes, missiles, tanks and military computer technologies -- to foreign governments. As you may know, Congress passed a law in 1976 that gave the President the power to approve all such arms sales. This law states that Congress can disapprove of a sale of military equipment over $14 million dollars. But the President can veto such an action. Then it would require a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress to override the veto. In fact, Congress has never succeeded in stopping an arms sale. The proposal was then presented: Currently, there is a proposal that would make it more possible for Congress to stop an arms sale over $14 million. Rather than Congress having the power to vote to stop an arms sale--and possibly be vetoed--arms sales could only occur if a majority in Congress were to vote in favor of the sale. This would mean that Congress could stop a sale with 51% of votes in both houses of Congress, while currently it could require 2/3s of both houses. Arguments Both pro and con arguments were found convincing by a bipartisan majority. The pro argument voiced the concern that, since arms sales have such a big impact on foreign policy, they should not be left up to one person. Seventy-one percent found this convincing (GOP 66%, Dem 78%, Ind 68%). The con stressed that the President should have more power than Congress over foreign policy and any military-related activities. Fifty-seven percent found this convincing, with little partisan difference (GOP 59%, Dem 57%, Ind 54%). Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose the following: Any deal to sell US-made military equipment to a foreign government that is worth over $14 million must be approved by a majority of Congress. A bipartisan 61% favored the proposal, including 56% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats and 61% of independents. Majorities in very red (57%) to very blue (61%) congressional districts were in favor. Demographics Status of Legislation The proposal was in the National Security Powers Act of 2021 by Sen. Murphy (D) and the National Security Reforms and Accountability Act by Rep. James McGovern (D). Neither bill made it out of committee.
	Require that before the President uses nuclear weapons first, Congress must be consulted and must make a declaration of war Survey: PPC, February 2019 Respondents were asked whether Congress should or should not pass a law saying that: The President would still have the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. To use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress, which would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons. A bipartisan majority of 68% thought the bill should be passed into law, including 59% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats. More Details Briefing There has been concern that the President has too much authority over the use of nuclear weapons. This has sparked debate over whether a nuclear first-strike should fall under the power of the President or Congress. To address this concern, Members of Congress have introduced legislation, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act (H.R. 669, S. 200), that would require the President to consult Congress and request a declaration of war before making first use of nuclear weapons. This is the proposal that was presented to respondents Respondents were first reminded that “only the President has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons and he is not required to consult with or get approval from Congress.” They were told that in the proposed legislation, the President would keep “the authority to use nuclear weapons in response to the launch of a nuclear strike against the U.S. or an ally.” But to use nuclear weapons first would require Congressional consultation, and Congress would have to vote to declare war. Arguments The argument favoring the legislation was found convincing by four in five (78%). The counter-argument was not received nearly as well, with a modest majority (53%) finding it convincing. There was a strong partisan divide, with 75% of Republicans giving weight to the counter- argument, but only 34% of Democrats. Independents were divided. Final Recommendation Respondents were then asked whether Congress should or should not pass a law saying that: The President would still have the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. To use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress, which would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons. Two-thirds (68%) thought the bill should be passed into law. This included 59% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats agreeing (Independents, 73%). Only thirty percent of all respondents opposed legislation requiring the president to get Congressional approval before starting a nuclear war. Demographics Status of Legislation The proposal to require the President to consult Congress and request a declaration of war before making first use of nuclear weapons is in the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, sponsored by Rep. Ted Lieu (D) (H.R. 669) and Sen. Ed Markey (D) (S. 200) in the 116th Congress. The bill was reintroduced in the 117th Congress by the same sponsors (H.R.669, S. 1148). This bill has not yet made it out of committee.