Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

Reporter’s Notebook: Who really decides when America goes to war? The answer isn’t so clear

Published

on


Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Advertisement
By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders’ most crystalline moment.

Advertisement

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to «declare War.» But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President «Commander in Chief.»

Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of «war.» But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well?

TRUMP RECEIVES MIXED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR IRAN STRIKES AS WAR POWERS DEBATE RAGES

Advertisement

The debate over who gets to declare war rages on in Congress. (Getty Images)

Are you «at war?» Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress?

Well, if you say the president — or Congress — both can be right.

Advertisement

Or wrong.

«I’m someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act,» said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. «(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process.»

SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITY 

Advertisement
Nancy Mace wears a pink top

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2023.  (Getty Images)

Mace noted «there were no troops on the ground.»

But then the South Carolina Republican added this:

«The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn’t like it, then Congress should get rid of it,» said Mace.

Advertisement

OK. Hold on.

We know what «troops on the ground» is. We think (think) we understand what «declaring war» is (or do we?).

But pray tell, what in the world is an «AUMF?»

Advertisement

That’s congressional speak for an «Authorization for Use of Military Force.»

It’s kind of like Congress «declaring war.» Both the House and Senate must vote to «declare war.»

Capitol Building at sunset

US Capitol Building at sunset on Jan. 30, 2025. (Fox News Digital)

Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s.

Advertisement

So did «declaring war,» apparently.

Congress hasn’t «declared war» since 1942.

And that was against Romania.

Advertisement

In fact, the U.S. has only «declared war» 11 times in history.

And Congress doesn’t just «declare war.» Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an «authorization» to send the military into harm’s way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it.

Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the «war on terror» in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq — on suspicion that Saddam Hussein’s regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion.

Advertisement

To Mace’s point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Mace’s argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks — or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement.

That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics.

This is why it’s a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved.

Advertisement

Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes.

ISRAEL-IRAN CONFLICT: LIVE UPDATES

Trump in the Situation Room with a MAGA hat

In this handout provided by the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) sit in the Situation Room as they monitor the mission that took out three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at the White House on June 21, 2025, in Washington. (Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images)

«I’ve been saying, ‘Hell yes’ for I think it’s almost six weeks,» said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.

Advertisement

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party.

«This window is open now,» said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. «We can’t take our boot off their neck.»

But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. There’s concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict.

Advertisement

«The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it’s going to be one and done, I think is a misconception,» said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

«They are worried that this will escalate,» said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. «And it wouldn’t take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control.»

Advertisement

This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran.

Left: President Donald Trump looks to the right; Right: Rep. Thomas Massie wears a red tie

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran on Trump’s orders. (Getty Images)

«I wouldn’t call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And we’re non-interventionists,» said Massie on CBS.

«You’re wasting billions of our dollars because we’re sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?» said Khanna, also on CBS.

Advertisement

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didn’t mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran.

«Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!» wrote Greene.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran.

Advertisement

«While President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional,» wrote Davidson on social media.

But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie.

«I’m not sure what’s going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything,» said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. «I’m not sure why he’s even here anymore.»

Advertisement

«He should be a Democrat because he’s more aligned with them than with the Republican Party,» said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaking.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will make a decision on the U.S. becoming involved in Israel’s conflict with Iran within the next two weeks. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Shooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. It’s currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats.

Advertisement

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran.

«We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It’s unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress,» said Kaine on Fox. «Every member of Congress needs to vote on this.»

Whether the U.S. is involved in «war» with Iran is an issue of debate. And here’s the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about «war» or «AUMFs» are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it — but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and it’s hard to decide the right thing to do.

Advertisement

The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a «monarch,» or, in our case, a president, couldn’t unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And that’s why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances.

Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder.

And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.

Advertisement
Advertisement

INTERNACIONAL

ICE director says Portland facility faces violence with ‘little help from local police’

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Federal immigration officials say their Portland, Oregon, facility has come under nightly attack, with little help from local police because of political directives from city leaders.

Advertisement

In an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Bill Melugin, Cammila Wamsley, director of Portland’s ICE office, said the facility has faced violence for more than 100 consecutive nights, with Portland police largely absent under guidance from the mayor and city council.

«I just, I can’t figure out what’s happening at the FDA. I’m totally baffled by it,» Wamsley said, describing her frustration at seeing federal staff attacked outside the building while officers inside lack jurisdiction to intervene. «It’s frustrating for us to watch people be attacked on the street and know that we don’t have the authority to be able to really step in unless there’s some nexus to federal law.»

She said nightly protests have escalated beyond chants and signs, with bottle rockets striking the ICE building, rocks shattering windows, lasers targeting officers’ eyes and barricades blocking vehicles.

Advertisement

ANTI-ICE PORTLAND RIOTERS WITH GUILLOTINE CLASH WITH POLICE IN WAR-LIKE SCENES

People protest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as federal agents watch from the rooftop in Portland, Ore., Wednesday. (AP Photo/Amanda Loman)

Wamsley said protesters have followed ICE staff members home and doxxed at least six employees.

Advertisement

«Later, towards the evening and around dark, there are a lot of folks that come up dressed in all black,» she explained. «They are here to wreak havoc. They’ll block our cars, throw paint, damage property and even try to follow our folks home.»

She warned that when crowds swell quickly, the violence becomes more dangerous.

ICE DIRECTOR REVEALS DANGEROUS NIGHTLY ANTIFA ‘BATTLE’ AS TRUMP PREPARES FEDERAL DEPLOYMENT TO PORTLAND

Advertisement
Protests and officers clash

A Federal Protective Service officer stands guard in front of demonstrators as protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcementdraw hundreds to the ICE headquarters in south Portland, Ore., Sunday.  (John Rudoff/Reuters)

«We’ve seen it before. The folks here can go from a crowd of 50 to a crowd of 1,000 in 30 minutes,» she explained. «Sometimes we only have 20 officers here. We would not be able to defend the building with that show of force.»

Wamsley said the Portland Police Department has been slow to respond — and sometimes doesn’t respond at all — because of city policy. She explained that assaults have occurred outside and across the street from the building, but police have either taken too long to arrive or not shown up at all.

«That is not the stance they would take six blocks from here, but it is the stance they take with us because of guidance from the mayor and city council,» Wamsley said.

Advertisement

PORTLAND MAYOR DOUBLES DOWN ON SANCTUARY STATUS AFTER VIOLENT ANTI-ICE RIOT

Protesters set up guillotine outside ICE facility in Portland, Oregon

Anti-ICE protesters roll out a guillotine in front of the ICE field office in Portland, Ore. (X/@KatieDaviscourt)

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Portland mayor’s office and police department for comment.

Still, Wamsley said ICE staff remain committed to their mission despite the unrest.

Advertisement

«The people that work here are here to serve the American public,» she said. «They are here to enforce the same immigration laws we’ve had in place since the 1950s. Nothing has changed in that regard. We come to work every day. We do our job the way we have been doing it, and we’ll continue to do that.»

PORTLAND RAMPS UP PRESSURE ON ICE BUILDING WITH LAND USE VIOLATION NOTICE

Federal agents arrest a person outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon, on June 18, 2025.

Federal agents arrest a person outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., in June. (X/@choeshow/@frontlinesTPUSA)

Todd Rignel, assistant special agent for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Oregon, said federal agencies are targeting Antifa-linked groups they blame for organizing much of the unrest.

Advertisement

«They’re not just facing HSI. They’re facing the FBI, ATF, DEA, IRS — all of these agencies,» he said. «That’s a force to be reckoned with.»

Portland remains a flashpoint for unrest with the ICE facility at the center of nightly confrontations.

President Donald Trump announced plans to send 200 National Guard troops to Portland to support immigration authorities. Officials said the troops would be stationed near protest areas.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The warnings follow an attack on an ICE facility in Dallas Sept. 24. Authorities said two detainees were killed and another was hospitalized after a gunman opened fire before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot. 

Investigators said shell casings recovered bore an «ANTI-ICE» message.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Madison Colombo contributed to this report.

oregon,homeland security,immigration,antifa,vandalism

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Recordando a Jane Goodall, la gigante defensora de los animales, en imágenes

Published

on


La famosa primatóloga Jane Goodall falleció a los 91 años. Su investigación pionera con chimpancés y su defensa del medio ambiente a nivel mundial transformaron la conservación.

Goodall nació en Londres, Inglaterra, el 3 de abril de 1934.

Advertisement

Jane fue una destacada etóloga, primatóloga y antropóloga, reconocida mundialmente por su extenso y pionero estudio de los chimpancés salvajes en el Parque Nacional Gombe Stream en Tanzania, una investigación que se extendió por más de sesenta años.

A la edad de 26 años, en 1960, viajó a Tanzania enviada por el famoso antropólogo Louis Leakey. Sus exhaustivas observaciones de campo revolucionaron a la comunidad científica al revelar comportamientos complejos en los chimpancés, como:

La capacidad de fabricar y utilizar herramientas, un rasgo que hasta entonces se creía exclusivo de los humanos.

Advertisement

Que los chimpancés son omnívoros y no vegetarianos.

Una estructura social y conductas desarrolladas que incluían altruismo, forrajeo, caza e incluso guerra entre grupos.

La importancia de la crianza, la adopción y los lazos familiares.

Advertisement
Goodall posa para un retrato en Nueva York para promocionar la película de Disneynature, «Nacida en China», el 7 de abril de 2017. Foto: Victoria Will/Invision/AP, archivo

A pesar de no haber cursado previamente estudios de grado, su extraordinario trabajo en terreno le permitió acceder y obtener un Doctorado en Etología por la Universidad de Cambridge en 1965.

En 1977, fundó el Instituto Jane Goodall para la Investigación, Educación y Conservación de la Vida Silvestre. A partir de 1986, dejó en gran medida el trabajo de campo para dedicarse al activismo y la conservación, viajando por el mundo como incansable defensora de la vida silvestre y Mensajera de la Paz de la ONU (desde 2002).

Goodall fue una figura clave que cambió la percepción humana sobre los chimpancés y es considerada una de las científicas de mayor impacto en el siglo XX y una de las activistas más influyentes del siglo XXI.

Advertisement

Jane Goodall, en imágenes

Esta es una galería de fotos seleccionada por los editores de Associated Press:

Foto: AP /Jean-Marc Bouju, archivoFoto: AP /Jean-Marc Bouju, archivo

Goodall besa a Tess, una chimpancé hembra, en el Santuario de Chimpancés Sweetwaters, cerca de Nanyuki, al norte de Nairobi, el 6 de diciembre de 1997.

Foto: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta, archivoFoto: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta, archivo

El presidente Joe Biden entrega la Medalla Presidencial de la Libertad, el mayor honor civil de la nación, a la conservacionista Jane Goodall en la Sala Este de la Casa Blanca, el 4 de enero de 2025, en Washington.

Foto: Attila Kovacs/MTI via AP, archivoFoto: Attila Kovacs/MTI via AP, archivo

La primatóloga, etóloga, antropóloga y Mensajera de la Paz de la ONU inglesa Jane Goodall observa gorilas después de descubrir la placa del fallecido primatólogo húngaro Geza Teleki en la Casa de los Simios del Zoológico de Budapest, en Budapest, Hungría, el 15 de junio de 2015.

Foto: AP/Chitose Suzuki, archivoFoto: AP/Chitose Suzuki, archivo

Goodall habla en un simposio de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard, «El estatus legal evolutivo de los chimpancés», en Cambridge, Massachusetts, el 30 de septiembre de 2002.

Foto: AP /Bela Szandelszky, archivoFoto: AP /Bela Szandelszky, archivo

La etnóloga británica observa a uno de los gorilas del Zoológico de Budapest, Hungría, el 11 de febrero de 2008.

Foto: AP, archivoFoto: AP, archivo

La antropóloga británica Jane Goodall aparece en una fotografía de 1975, en paradero desconocido.

Foto: AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, archivoFoto: AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, archivo

La primatóloga y antropóloga inglesa Jane Goodall habla en un panel «Guardianes de la sabiduría de la Tierra» en la reunión anual del foro en Davos, Suiza, el 19 de enero de 2024.

Foto: AP/Charles Knoblock, archivo.Foto: AP/Charles Knoblock, archivo.

La primatóloga Jane Goodall revisa diapositivas antes de hacer una presentación en Chicago, el 9 de mayo de 1982.

Foto: AP/Craig Ruttle, archivoFoto: AP/Craig Ruttle, archivo

El ministro de Asuntos Exteriores francés, Laurent Fabius, de izquierda a derecha, la primatóloga Jane Goodall, el ex vicepresidente estadounidense Al Gore, el alcalde de Nueva York, Bill de Blasio, y el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon, participan en la Marcha de los Pueblos por el Clima en Nueva York, el 21 de septiembre de 2014.

Foto: AP/Bela Szandelszky, archivo.Foto: AP/Bela Szandelszky, archivo.

La primatóloga Jane Goodall besa a Pola, una cría de chimpancé de 14 meses del Zoológico de Budapest, que adoptó simbólicamente, el 20 de diciembre de 2004.

Foto: AP, archivoFoto: AP, archivo

La antropóloga Jane Goodall, a la derecha con su esposo Hugo van Lawick detrás de cámara, enero de 1974. El Barón Hugo van Lawick fue el primer esposo de Jane Goodall. Se casaron en 1964 y tuvieron un hijo, Hugo Eric Louis van Lawick, apodado «Grub,» nacido en 1967. Se divorciaron en 1974 después de una década de matrimonio.

Foto: AP/Brennan Linsley, archivoFoto: AP/Brennan Linsley, archivo

La primatóloga y conservacionista Jane Goodall pronuncia la 50ª Conferencia Memorial George Gamow en la Universidad de Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, el 1 de octubre de 2015.

Redacción Clarín con información de Associated Press

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Russian leader responds to American conservative’s murder: ‘A disgusting atrocity’

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday said the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a sign of a «deep rift» in American society, while offering his condolences to the family of the late conservative activist. 

Advertisement

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi at a forum of Russian experts, Putin addressed the killing, according to Reuters.

«This is a disgusting atrocity, especially since it was broadcast live. We all saw it. It was truly horrific,» Putin said. «First and foremost, I extend my condolences to Mr. Kirk’s family and all his loved ones. We sympathize and empathize.

JD VANCE DECLARES THERE IS ‘NO UNITY’ WITH PEOPLE WHO CELEBRATE CHARLIE KIRK’S ASSASSINATION

Advertisement

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday condemned the killing of Charlie Kirk while speaking to a panel of Russian experts.  (Getty Images)

«What happened is a reflection of a deep division within society. In the United States, I don’t believe there is any need to escalate the situation externally, as the country’s political leadership is working to restore order domestically,» he added.

Kirk was shot and killed in September while speaking at Utah Valley University.

Advertisement

His alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, faces seven charges, including aggravated homicide, which carries the potential death penalty; felony discharge of a firearm; obstruction and witness tampering.

Robinson returned to court Monday and is scheduled to appear again Oct. 30. Prosecutors said they had already gathered «voluminous» evidence against him.

TRUMP DEFENDS LABELING ANTIFA A ‘TERRORIST ORGANIZATION’ AS HE TARGETS LEFT-WING EXTREMISM

Advertisement
Charlie Kirk speaks to the audience just before he was shot

Charlie Kirk speaks before he is assassinated during Turning Point’s visit to Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, Sept. 10, 2025. (Tess Crowley/The Deseret News via AP)

Kirk’s murder has intensified debate over political violence in the United States. Republican leaders have urged Democrats to moderate their rhetoric toward President Donald Trump and to embrace greater tolerance for opposing views.

In addition to addressing Kirk’s death, Putin responded to Trump’s recent characterization of Russia as a «paper tiger.»

«A paper tiger? Then go deal with this paper tiger,» Putin said. «If we are fighting the entire NATO bloc, moving forward, advancing and feeling confident, and we are still called a paper tiger, then what does that make NATO itself?»

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Last week, Trump predicted Ukraine could reclaim all its territory from Russia before labeling Moscow a «paper tiger.»



vladimir putin,charlie kirk,russia

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tendencias