Congressional polarization and limitation riders in foreign aid appropriations

Preemptive Action: Measuring Presidential Assertiveness in Foreign Policy Lawmaking

“…In practice, presidents conduct foreign policy largely outside the realm of lawmaking and invoke assertive autonomy to do so even under the impression of concerted congressional opposition. Still, lawmaking and authorization legislation in particular can impose undesired restrictions on incumbents and often does so means of limitation riders and spending restrictions (Carcelli, 2022). Legislation can add reporting requirements to programs covered in the NDAA or restrict presidents in using funds for certain purposes like closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.…”

Polarization and US foreign policy: key debates and new findings

“…By making it more difficult for lawmakers to build the broad coalitions that are typically needed to enact laws, polarization is weakening congressional influence and enabling a further expansion in executive power, potentially facilitating rash or unwise presidential foreign policy actions (Marshall and Haney 2022). While lawmakers have sought to maintain congressional influence by shifting legislative activity to limitation riders-amendments to appropriations bills that restrict or prohibit certain types of spending-such devices are not well-suited to all types of foreign policy measures (Carcelli 2022).…”

“…A few of the articles point to some more optimistic takeaways. The increased use by Congress of spending restrictions shows that lawmakers can adapt to political constraints in ways that enable them to maintain policy influence (Carcelli 2022). The role of ideology as a driver of congressional behavior can also enable Congress to act as a source of policy innovation (Bendix and Jeong 2022), while the intraparty divisions that characterize some foreign policy debates can foster the emergence of new ideas, policy entrepreneurs, and cross-cutting coalitions (Friedrichs 2022;Homan and Lantis 2022).…”

“…Shannon Carcelli argues that polarization and gridlock in Congress have incentivized legislators to turn to unorthodox foreign policymaking, particularly on foreign aid policy (Carcelli 2022). Through the use of limitation riders (specifications written within an appropriations bill that limit the administration's policy discretion), members of Congress seek to limit the allocation of aid to other countries or prevent spending foreign aid money for particular purposes.…”

“…Overall, articles in the special issue show that polarization is weakening Congress on foreign policy, in areas ranging from legislating, to oversight, to overseas travel (Haney and Marshall 2022;McGee and Theriault 2022). Yet Congress continues to challenge or restrain the president on some important international issues, suggesting that there remain substantial limits on presidential power (Bryan and Tama 2022;Carcelli 2022). One way to move this debate forward would be to trace the motivations of legislators in seeking to manipulate the foreign policymaking process-for instance, examining when legislators act to advance their own policy views and when they act based on partisan goals.…”