AO1: The Constitution has a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch dominating policy such as foreign policy AO2: This means that the president must consult with Congress on certain actions such as treaties AO3: Therefore presidents cannot act unilaterally when dealing with other countries Presidential power in foreign policy depends on the willingness of Congress to grant funds AO1: Presidential actions in deploying troops or allocating funding for trade or aid in executive agreements must be approved by Congress AO2: This can be difficult to achieve for presidents to achieve for controversial policies, especially in times of a divided government where foreign policy may not align with one or both chambers of Congress AO3: Presidential power in foreign policy can be limited by other factors such as public opinion, which Congress is very responsive to AO1: In the digital age public opinion on foreign policy is often polarised by an increasingly dogmatic media, and presidents who may need to run for re- election or who are reliant on Congress to allocate funds or approval must pay heed AO2: This is particularly true in an election year when media coverage can make or break a candidate’s electoral chances and so presidents cannot rely on support for their foreign policy in Congress, especially it is perceived as weak or controversial by the public or the media AO3: Congress has become increasingly willing to check presidential power over foreign policy through the committee system AO1: Committees can investigate issues or vote on funding or to approve or reject presidential proposals which can put pressure on presidents to rethink proposals AO2: This is particularly true in times of divided government when Congress is more likely to challenge a president of the opposing party, especially if they appear to be more likely to gain support within Congress for opposition

AO1: Presidents have the constitutional power to dominate foreign policy as they are the designated commander-in-chief AO2: Therefore, presidents can deploy troops into active combat without consulting Congress first as long as they do not declare war AO3: It is less likely that Congress will refuse any funding for troops who already ‘in the field’ as this may lead to media and public criticism which may harm individual popularity AO1: Presidents can make executive agreements with other countries without formal ratification by Congress AO2: This gives presidents the opportunity to make links and agreements with other countries that do not require formal debate or approval by the legislative branch. This has increased over time. AO3: Therefore, presidents may still act arbitrarily without consultation with the other branches of government without any formal limitations on this power, with the increased use of executive agreements suggesting this has become the preferred method of conducting foreign policy for modern presidents AO1: Supreme Court rulings have previously confirmed that presidents should be dominant in foreign policy AO2: This includes the use of executive agreements, which have been ruled to have the same legal status as treaties, thus increasing the power of the president to act alone in foreign policy AO3: This therefore allows modern presidents to act without fear of agreements being declared unconstitutional AO1: Presidents have become increasingly willing to use executive orders to create foreign policy without the need for legislation AO2: While executive orders may still require authorisation from Congress for funding of troops or projects, this still adds to the power of the president when considering the use of executive orders for ‘emergency’ actions or developing relations with countries AO3: This adds to the perception that in foreign policy the president is ‘imperial’ and does not have to rely on approval from the legislative branch for his policies