Can Anyone Stop a President From Starting a War? (#318)

3 Takeaways™

In this episode of Three Takeaways, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson discusses the immense power presidents hold to initiate military action without

Key takeaways

Presidents often act without congressional approval due to expansive interpretations of executive power, even though Congress has only formally declared war five times in U.S. history.

Main topics

Presidential war powers under the U.S. Constitution
The decline of congressional authority in declaring war

Notable quotes

"Mr. President, do something" can be the most dangerous advice a president receives.

"The Constitution was designed to slow down decisions about war. Today's world rewards speed."

Conclusion

Johnson concludes that while presidential power has grown significantly, the constitutional principle of

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:01) Every crisis comes with the same demand. Do something. But what if acting too quickly can be just as dangerous as waiting? The Constitution was designed to slow down decisions about war. Today's world rewards speed. So how do you protect a country without giving one person too much power? Speaker 1 (0:26) Hi, everyone. I'm Lynn Thoman, and this is Three Takeaways. On Three Takeaways, I talk with some of the world's best thinkers, business leaders, writers, politicians, newsmakers, and scientists. Each episode ends with three key takeaways to help us understand the world and maybe even ourselves a little better. Speaker 1 (0:49) Today, I'm delighted to be with Jay Johnson. He spent years in rooms most of us will never see. As Secretary of Homeland Security and previously General Counsel of the Department of Defense, he's advised presidents on war, terrorism, and protecting the country. Few people have had a closer view of how America's hardest national security decisions are made. Secretary Johnson, welcome to Three Takeaways. Speaker 2 (1:18) Thank you, Lynn. I look forward to our discussion. Speaker 1 (1:20) Me too. Every crisis seems to come with the same pressure. Mr. President, do something. You've been in that room. Why can those three words be the most dangerous advice a president receives? Speaker 2 (1:36) Because presidents, and very often their appointees, are politicians accustomed to responding to public urgency, public cries for action. In my experience, as the lawyer for the Department of Defense, as the Secretary of DHS, it really does pay to have advisors with a range of philosophies and attitudes about how to respond to a crisis. Some can be aggressive, some are more thoughtful, more methodical. And if you have that collection of advisors, there is very often brilliance somewhere in the middle in healthy decision-making. Speaker 1 (2:16) How does one get to that brilliance in the middle? Speaker 2 (2:19) By consciously and deliberately selecting a group of advisors, not necessarily your cabinet, but a group of advisors who you know represent a range of viewpoints. And I don't necessarily mean political viewpoints. I mean a range of risk tolerance. Some people are action-oriented, proactive. Some people are more cautious. And you really do have to have all of them in the room together. I know that from personal experience. Speaker 1 (2:47) Can you talk about that personal experience? Can you give an example? Of course, that's not classified. Speaker 2 (2:54) Yes, I'll talk about my own time as the head of an agency of 250,000 people. Very often, I'd read something or see something in the morning. that really set me off at 6 a.m. in the morning on my way to work, for example, like a leaked IG report or a congressional hearing about something that's going to make DHS look bad. I'd get to work. I'd want to do something. So I'd type out on my own a statement, a public statement. That is wrong, and here's why. But before I told my comms people, hit send, I'd wait for five key advisors to get to work. I'd hit the print button five times. I'd show them each a copy, say without asking a leading question, what do you think? And the usual weight of the room was, come on, boss, you know, you can't do that. You know, you can't say that. You're going to offend so-and-so and next week you need so-and-so for this. And one or two others might say, yep, go ahead and do it. You're absolutely right. You deserve to be angry. Go ahead. And most of the time, I'd find consensus in the middle and go with that. Sometimes I'd say, to hell with it. I'm going to do this anyway. I hear you. And sometimes I'd blow off steam, and by 11 a.m., I was on to something else. So I think the same dynamic can exist in national security at the highest levels of our government. It's key for the decision maker to be able to listen more than you talk. Speaker 1 (4:33) Here's something that surprised me. The presidents rarely have all the information that they would like before making life and death decisions. How often do they have to act knowing they'll never have all the facts that they want? Speaker 2 (4:48) I'm Speaker 1 (4:48)