congressional authorization

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

In his threats against Greenland, President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f, prompting Congress to take swift action.

The plan for a new DOJ fraud division, reportedly run from the White House, raises major legal and policy questions about executive power and DOJ independence.

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

Previous Army privatization experiences demonstrate that the logic of Secretary Driscoll’s proposal to court private equity firms is difficult to defend.

Trump’s announcement 'approving' a nuclear-powered submarine plan with South Korea contradicts U.S. law requiring specific terms, agreements, and congressional review.

Unless Congress reasserts control over federal spending, the balance the framers designed could collapse into a self-financing presidency.

A mock “operational legal review” depicting what a staff judge advocate’s advice should have been prior to the first reported strike on an alleged drug trafficking vessel.

Trump’s threat of military intervention in Nigeria may be intended more for domestic audiences and wouldn't address the drivers of the country's conflict.

Clearly, U.S. actions are threatening to Venezuela. But do they amount to an unlawful threat under international law, or are they merely a lawful show of force?

Congress did not write IEEPA to allow a President to replace the income tax system with a patchwork of tariffs that they can impose, adjust, or suspend at will.

The administration's legal argument is both "incorrect and dangerous," writes Finucane.