On Monday, the Trump administration issued a warning to the Syrian regime. If Syria conducted another chemical weapons attack, the regime would pay a heavy price, the White House said. It was a sign that President Trump intends to enforce the red line President Obama…
On Monday, the Trump administration issued a warning to the Syrian regime. If Syria conducted another chemical weapons attack, the regime would “pay a heavy price, ” the White House said. It was a sign that President Trump intends to enforce the “red line” President Obama threatened Bashar al-Assad with in 2013, with or without, Congressional authorization.
When asked if the warning was indeed a “red line, ” a National Security Council spokesperson told THE WEEKLY STANDARD, “The White House made a specific statement about a specific possible event. That statement is consistent with our Syria policy and past actions. . .. The Assad regime knows what it is doing and the statement was meant for its leaders.” Indeed, after the April 4 sarin gas attack (which has now been officially confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) , President Trump said that the attack “cross [ed] many, many lines, beyond a red line. Many, many lines.”
However, asked directly if the president needed or would seek Congressional approval, the NSC spokesperson responded:
As commander in chief, the president has the power under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important U. S. national interests. The United States has a strong national interest in preserving regional stability, averting a worsening of the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, and deterring the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, especially in a region rife with international terrorist groups with an interest in obtaining these weapons and using them to attack the United States and its allies and partners.
This statement confirms what White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on April 10 regarding the president’s Article II authority: “Article 2 of the Constitution is pretty clear that when it’s in the national interest of the country, the president has the full authority to act.”
The frequency and source of chemical weapons attacks has been the subject of some confusion in the Trump administration. In addition to conflicting information from national security adviser H. R. McMaster and secretary of State Rex Tillerson, President Trump said on April 5, ” [I] f you look back over the last few weeks, there were other attacks using gas.” Asked about the source for the president’s claims, in addition to the “large number of instances” of alleged chemical attacks in press reports, the NSC spokesperson told TWS that:
[T] he Joint Investigative Mechanism established by the United Nations Security Council has already found the Syrian regime accountable for use in three chemical weapons attacks in 2014 and 2015. It continues to investigate additional chemical weapons attacks.
Further, a Human Rights Watch report released in May concluded that the Syrian regime repeatedly used chemical weapons—primarily chlorine, but also nerve agent—against opponents between December 2016 and May 2017. In addition to Syria’s use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun on April 4, we are aware of credible allegations that the regime used nerve agent or other chemical weapons on the other dates specified in the Human Rights Watch report. As the president made clear, stopping chemical weapons use is in the clear vital national interests of the United States.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD sought confirmation from the NSC official that Article II authority meant the president could act unilaterally against the Syrian regime for chemical weapons attacks and if that authority extended to action against ISIS, but the spokesperson has not yet responded.
UPDATE, 11: 04 a.m.: An NSC spokesperson clarified that the Trump administration will continue to reply upon the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force for actions against ISIS, but responding to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons was part of the president’s Article II powers and did not need Congressional approval. The spokesperson would not speculate about what level of actions against the Syrian regime would require Congressional authorization.
