Ever wonder how the United States makes big-time deals with other countries without waiting for a gridlocked Senate to vote? It happens all the time. Actually, it happens way more than you think. While the Constitution talks a big game about treaties, the executive agreement is the real workhorse of American foreign policy.
It’s a bit of a loophole. Or at least, it feels like one to people who value the strict "advice and consent" process.
Basically, an executive agreement is an international accord reached by the President of the United States that doesn't require a two-thirds vote from the Senate. Think of it like a handshake that carries the weight of law. It's legally binding. It’s powerful. And it’s how most of the world’s business actually gets done.
The High-Stakes Reality of the Executive Agreement
If you look at the numbers, the shift is staggering. In the early days of the Republic, treaties were the norm. But since World War II? The script flipped. Presidents have realized that waiting for 67 Senators to agree on anything is a recipe for getting nothing done.
✨ Don't miss: What Really Happened With the Government Shutdown: What Trump Said (And Did)
Most people think of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) as the gold standard of alliances. That’s a treaty. It went through the whole formal song and dance. But then you have something like the Paris Agreement on climate change or the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). Those weren't treaties. They were executive agreements.
Why does that matter?
Because what one President creates with a pen, the next one can erase with an eraser. We saw this play out in real-time when the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Agreement, only for the Biden administration to jump back in immediately. It’s foreign policy on a pendulum.
The Different Flavors of These Deals
Not all of these agreements are built the same way. You've basically got three types, though the lines get blurry.
First, there’s the congressional-executive agreement. This is the most common kind. The President gets a simple majority from both the House and the Senate. It’s easier than a treaty because you don't need that pesky two-thirds supermajority. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was done this way. It’s a hybrid. It feels democratic because Congress is involved, but it bypasses the high bar of the Treaty Clause.
Then you have agreements made pursuant to an existing treaty. Suppose the U.S. has a broad treaty with Japan about defense. The President might sign a smaller executive agreement regarding where exactly a specific base goes. The "big" treaty gave the authority, and the "small" agreement handles the logistics.
The third kind is the spicy one: sole executive agreements.
This is where the President acts alone, citing their constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief or their authority over foreign affairs. No Congress. No vote. Just the White House and a foreign leader. This is where the tension usually sits. Critics argue it bypasses the checks and balances the Founders intended. Supporters say the President needs the flexibility to handle fast-moving global crises.
Legal Legitimacy and the Supreme Court
You might be asking, "Is this even legal?"
The short answer is yes. The long answer involves a lot of dusty law books and a few landmark Supreme Court cases.
Back in 1937, the Court looked at United States v. Belmont. This case involved the Litvinov Assignment, an agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Court ruled that even though it wasn't a formal treaty, it still had the same status as federal law. It overrides state law. They doubled down on this in 1942 with United States v. Pink.
Basically, the judicial branch has given the President a massive green light. They’ve decided that the President's "sole organ" status in foreign relations allows for these kinds of deals.
But there’s a catch.
While an executive agreement is binding under international law, it’s a bit more fragile under domestic law if it doesn't have Congressional backing. If a deal requires money—like, say, billions of dollars in foreign aid—the President has to go to Congress. The President can sign the paper, but only Congress can open the wallet.
Why the "Executive Agreement" is a Political Necessity
Let's get real. The Senate is where foreign policy goes to die.
If every trade deal, environmental pact, or postal agreement had to undergo a full-blown treaty debate, the U.S. would be a hermit kingdom. The world moves too fast. When the U.S. needed to settle claims with Iran during the hostage crisis in 1981 (the Algiers Accords), they used an executive agreement. They didn't have months to debate it in committees.
There's also the "secret" factor. Some agreements are sensitive. While the Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify Congress of these deals, it doesn't mean the public always gets the full scoop right away.
The Weakness Nobody Talks About
The biggest flaw of the executive agreement is its shelf life.
If you're a foreign leader, why would you sign a massive deal with a U.S. President if you know the next guy might just cancel it? This "reliability gap" is a huge issue in modern diplomacy. Treaties are hard to get, but they are incredibly hard to break. They provide stability.
Executive agreements provide speed, but they lack the "stickiness" of a treaty.
We are currently seeing a world where countries are hesitant to make long-term promises to the U.S. because they see our internal politics. They see how easily an executive agreement can be tossed aside. It makes the U.S. look like an inconsistent partner.
Modern Examples You Should Know
It’s not just old history. This is happening right now.
- The Abraham Accords: These were instrumental in normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations. They weren't formal treaties submitted to the Senate; they were executive-led frameworks.
- The Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA): These are the deals that dictate what happens if a U.S. soldier gets into trouble in a foreign country like South Korea or Germany. Almost all of these are executive agreements.
- Trade Arrangements: While the "Big" ones like the USMCA (the NAFTA replacement) go through Congress, dozens of smaller sector-specific trade deals are handled via executive authority every year.
Navigating the Future of Presidential Power
The use of the executive agreement is only going to increase. As political polarization makes the two-thirds Senate majority almost impossible for anything controversial, the White House will continue to lean on its own pens.
If you are tracking how the U.S. interacts with the world, stop looking at the Treaty Room. Look at the memos coming out of the West Wing. That is where the real law is being made.
To truly understand where a specific policy stands, you have to look for the "authorization." Was this deal backed by a previous law? Did it get a majority vote in both houses? If the answer is no, it's a sole executive agreement—meaning its survival depends entirely on the next election.
Actionable Takeaways for Following Foreign Policy
- Check the Authorization: Whenever you hear about a new "deal" with another country, look up if it was a treaty or an executive agreement. If it's the latter, know that it's vulnerable to the next administration.
- Watch the Funding: If an agreement requires the U.S. to spend money, follow the House Appropriations Committee. They are the only ones who can actually fund the President's promises.
- Monitor the Case-Zablocki Filings: Serious policy wonks track these notifications to see what the State Department is actually committing to behind the scenes.
- Recognize the "Executive" Label: Use the term executive agreement correctly in discussions to distinguish between a permanent national commitment (treaty) and a policy-driven administration goal.
The reality of 21st-century governance is that the "advice and consent" of the Senate has largely been replaced by the "initiative and signature" of the President. Whether that’s a good thing for democracy is a debate for the ages, but for now, it’s the way the world turns.