Alarmed by President Donald Trump’s bellicose statements and impulsive governing style, two congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would prohibit the president — any president — from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress explicitly endorsing such an attack.
In seeking to restrict the president’s authority to launch a first strike, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 proposed by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Ted Lieu of Torrance cites Congress’ authority under the Constitution to declare war. The legislation says the Framers understood “the monumental decision to go to war … must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.”
The problem is that Congress’ authority to declare war has always been in tension with the Constitution’s designation of the president as commander in chief, a role that sometimes requires the president to act swiftly to defend the nation. The nuclear age further complicated the relationship between the two branches because decisions about launching a nuclear attack might have to be made under severe time pressure.
A main concern about this bill is that it would make it harder for a president not just to use nuclear weapons but also deter aggression by leaving adversaries in doubt about whether and when such weapons might be used. This ambiguity is part of the paradoxical policy of nuclear deterrence that traces back to the Cold War era.
The Obama administration adopted a policy stating the U.S. would consider use of nuclear weapons only in certain extreme circumstances. It also promised to strengthen conventional capabilities with the goal of “making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.”
In recent testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Brian P. McKeon, a Pentagon official in the Obama administration, said the Trump administration is continuing to follow the Obama policy while it develops its own approach.
That would be consistent with Trump’s comments about “first use” during last year’s campaign. During a debate with Hillary Clinton, he said: “I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared.”
Many members of Congress — not all of them Democrats — worry this sort of cautious formulation might give way to a heedless reaction if the mercurial Trump felt provoked.
During the Foreign Relations Committee session, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said he and others were concerned “that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.” And while committee chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., does not support proposals such as the Markey-Lieu bill at the moment, he told the New York Times last month that some of Trump’s comments made him worry “we could be heading toward World War III.” (During the same interview, Corker added that “I don’t believe he is a warmonger.”)
Concerns about Trump’s temperament are understandable. But the president has deferred to the advice of his national security team, including on nuclear strategy.
So long as that is the case, Congress shouldn’t attempt to legislate a drastic change in a president’s authority to defend the nation.
— Los Angeles Times