The TrillionsWeekly.com website now includes: Iran War coverage and an explanation of the War Powers Law; a complete library of appropriations, budget and tax docs; exclusive overviews of federal spending and taxes; nonpartisan explanations of the budget process including shutdowns and reconciliation; tracking of key developments in appropriations, DHS shutdown, taxes, tariffs, election law, federal workforce, immigration, economy, healthcare, energy-environment, other key policy areas. 25% discount ends this week: only $37.50/yr.
Please forward this email to family, friends and colleagues who would appreciate a nonpartisan newsletter/website tracking national & international developments.
Would you prefer to listen to this newsletter? Download the free Substack app (available on IOS and ANDROID).
Reading Time: While we work hard to keep each weekly report under 15 minutes, this week we’re closer to 20 minutes in order to give you a full explanation of the congressional war powers votes. Next Monday, we’ll be back to our usual brevity.
(1) DAY 6 OF THE US-ISRAEL-IRAN WAR: What is the Purpose and Is it Legal?
Latest news is available on our webpage: War with Iran – Recent Developments; and we’ve added another webpage that explains Congress’s role in authorizing military action at WarPowersResolutionExplained.com.
Senate War Powers Vote Yesterday: Late afternoon Wednesday, the Senate defeated S.J.Res. 104, a joint resolution (requiring presidential signature) that would have terminated U.S. participation in hostilities against Iran absent a declaration of war or AUMF (authorization for use of military force). The vote was along party lines (47-53) except for Rand Paul (R-KY) who voted for the resolution and John Fetterman (D-PA) who voted against the resolution. By this vote, Republicans have decided to give President Trump carte blanche, at least for now and abdicate their constitutional responsibility in deciding when the nation goes to war.
House War Powers Vote Today: The House will likely vote Thursday on H.Con.Res. 38, a concurrent resolution of Congress (not requiring presidential signature and not having the force of law) that seeks to terminate U.S. participation in hostilities against Iran absent a declaration of war or AUMF (authorization for use of military force). The House resolution is largely symbolic and is likely to be defeated in a party line vote.
You have heard some Members of Congress call the war illegal. The war is illegal, if:
You believe Article I of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous in stating, “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War;” and
You believe there was no imminent threat to the United States requiring an immediate response by the Commander in Chief to protect the U.S.; and
You believe the 1973 War Powers law is constitutional and President Trump failed to “consult” with Congress as required by the War Powers law.
As to the first point above, consider the words of Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 69, explaining the Founders’ understanding of the Constitution they had drafted. He left no doubt that the Founders intended to invest in Congress—not the President—the decisionmaking authority on going to war:
“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.” (emphasis added)Clearly, the Founders had no intention to invest monarchical war making powers in the President. They fought a revolution to overthrow a King who could tax them and take them to war, at his own whim.The post-Vietnam 1973 war powers law was enacted to address and manage these often difficult questions that emerge from the division of war powers between Congress’ power to declare war and the President’s power as Commander in Chief to conduct war.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution (“WPR”)—often called the War Powers Act—(PL 93-148, 50 USC Ch. 33) is a law enacted by Congress (over President Nixon’s veto) to limit the President’s ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval.
Section 2 of the WPR states, “It is the purpose of (the statute) to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”
President Trump has not sought the collective judgment or support of the people’s representatives in Congress before launching this major military action that has quickly escalated into a major war, already involving 15 countries.
Speaker Mike Johnson’s protestations that the U.S. is “not at war” with Iran is a lie and an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
Its WPR’s core requirements are:
Consultation: the president must consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities.
In this case, consultation was minimal. Only the “Gang of Eight” — party leaders from both chambers and the Intelligence committees’ leadership — were notified by the White House shortly before the attack. Notification is not consultation; this requirement of the war powers law has not been met.
48-Hour Notification Report: Under section 4 of the WPR, in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress, the President must, within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities, submit a written report to Congress explaining:
“the circumstances necessitating the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces;”
“the constitutional and legislative authority” for the action; and
“the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities...”
HERE is the very brief 48-hour report submitted by the Trump Administration.
60-Day Automatic Termination of Deployment: Once forces are introduced into hostilities, the President must remove U.S. forces within 60 days unless: Congress has declared war, authorized the use of force, extended the 60-day period, or is unable to meet due to an attack on the U.S. The President can extend the 60-day period by an additional 30 days if necessary to safely remove the forces.
This provision clearly requires the withdrawal of U.S. forces after 60 or 90 days absent a congressional authorization. However, every President since Nixon has declined to acknowledge the War Powers law as a binding constitutional restraint on their executive power as commander-in-chief. Consequently, Presidents typically submit reports “consistent with” the WPR rather than “pursuant to it” so as not to trigger the 60-day termination clock. President Trump has followed this practice of his predecessors.
Congressional Termination: In the absence of a declaration of war or AUMF, the law permits Congress to terminate the deployment of U.S. forces through adoption of a concurrent resolution (not requiring presidential signature), although it is now widely accepted that a joint resolution (requiring presidential signature) is required due to the Supreme Court’s action in 1983 striking down legislative vetoes (INS v. Chadha).
As a practical matter, Congress can only terminate—or place limits on—the use of force by a President by:
Passing a joint resolution which places legal constraints on the President;
Cutting off funds for the military deployment; or
Bipartisan political pressure on the President demonstrating a lack of public support.
Congress has four times enacted joint resolutions called AUMFs (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) since 1973 — Lebanon (1983), Gulf War (1991), post-9/11 (2001), and Iraq (2002).
WHY THE WAR, AND WHY NOW? Trump Administration justifications for launching the war have been rapidly shifting—
The most preposterous justification came Monday from Sec. of State Rubio saying they felt an Israeli attack on Iran was imminent, so the U.S. strike was preemptive in order to protect U.S. personnel in the area. President Trump quickly reversed this posture on Tuesday saying he pushed Prime Minister Netanyahu into the joint attack.
President Trump initially said one goal of the war was regime change, saying to Iranians on Day 1 the country “will be yours to take.” He added: “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny ... This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.” However, regime change is another preposterous objective for a military campaign consisting solely of air strikes and lacking ground coordination with an organized political opposition.
On Monday, President Trump backed away from regime change and laid out 4 military objectives—none of which provide a compelling and urgent justification for launching a dangerous regional war and placing U.S. armed forces in harm’s way:
Missiles: “First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities and you see that happening on an hourly basis and their capacity to produce brand-new ones.”
Navy: “Second, we’re annihilating their Navy. We’ve knocked out already 10 ships. They’re at the bottom of the sea.”
Proxies: “Third, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.” (This refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq.)
Nuclear: “And finally, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon.” However, just last year, on June 21, 2025, President Trump claimed “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”
In the last two days, the President and his press office have been saying he had a “good feeling” Iran was planning to attack the U.S., necessitating a preemptive attack.
(2) DAY 19 of THE DHS SHUTDOWN SHOWS LITTLE PROGRESS.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shut down Friday, February 13, 2026, at midnight due to the expiration of temporary funding for the current fiscal year. (All other federal government departments are now funded through September 30, 2026).
DHS is shut down because—in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good—Democrats do not want to fund the Department unless the funding bill is amended to include provisions requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to identify themselves during immigration enforcement operations, operate without masks and with body cameras, and obtain judicial warrants to make arrests on private property (as the Constitution requires)—among other use of force requirements that typically apply to law enforcement operations.
Although the shutdown is aimed at stopping extreme conduct by some ICE and CBP officers, the shutdown does not actually impact ICE or CBP because both of those agencies received multiyear direct appropriations in last year’s massive budget and tax reconciliation bill (OBBBA).
Instead, the shutdown is impacting the other agencies at DHS including:
FEMA (which provides disaster assistance, emergency food and shelter, flood insurance, and nonprofit security grants),
TSA (which handles airport security),
U.S. Secret Service,
CISA (cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency), and
U.S. Coast Guard (responsible for search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, port and coastal security).
Most of the employees at these agencies must continue working—rather than being furloughed—because they are classified as “excepted,” but they are working without pay—which will be reflected in their March paycheck.
Latest shutdown developments:
GovExec reports that Republican congressional leadership is searching for a “shutdown off-ramp” as DHS employees start missing pay, and hope a new vote this week, and homeland security concerns from the war in Iran, will help spur a breakthrough on DHS funding. However, Politico reports that Democrats will not yield on their demands for guardrails on ICE and CBP.
Noem says DHS has funds for one more paycheck for Coast Guard amid shutdown.
As expected, CBP announced plans to use funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue paying more than 57,600 agency employees during the shutdown.
TSA workers will miss their first full paycheck on March 14—if the impasse isn’t resolved.
Last Thursday, CBS reported the shutdown is stalling World Cup security funding; and Semafor reported that FEMA’s disaster relief fund is nearly depleted.
Last Wednesday, Secretary Noem threatened to again suspend TSA PreCheck; the prior weekend, PreCheck was suspended but reversed the next day.
In other DHS / Immigration news:
(3) ECONOMIC NEWS
The U.S-Israel war with Iran has spilled over into the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, prompting a surge in oil prices:
Shipping through the strait, which carries one-fifth of the oil consumed globally as well as large quantities of gas, has ground to a near halt amid Iranian attacks on oil tankers. At least five tankers have been damaged, one worker killed, and about 150 ships stranded around the strait.
On Tuesday, Trump said the U.S. will provide escorts for oil tankers through the Gulf, but on Wednesday a navy official said that naval vessels were not available due to ongoing military operations.
Crude oil prices settled up more than 6% on Monday after surging more than 12% earlier in the day. European natural gas futures soared more than 40%.
Qatar suspended liquified natural gas production at the world’s largest export facility following a drone attack, causing LNG prices in Europe to surge as much as 54%. Bloomberg reports, “QatarEnergy’s Ras Laffan plant covers about a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supply, and the unprecedented halt now threatens energy security and rattled global markets.”
Trump Tariffs and their Effects:
Administration Slow-Walks Tariff Refunds: The White House faces thousands of lawsuits as it tries to slow-walk tariff refunds in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down IEEPA tariffs. – Politico
The Administration’s section 122 tariffs, which have been imposed in place of the invalidated IEEPA tariffs, are increasing to 15% this week.
However, read this Wall Street Journal analysis arguing that Section 122 Can’t Carry Trump’s Tariffs. It requires a balance-of-payments deficit—a problem that has become obsolete.
Walmart issued a “Tariff Cliff” warning in its February quarterly report, noting its inventory buffers built up in 2025 are now exhausted, leading to an immediate 3% jump in prices.
Caterpillar reported a 9% drop in operating profits due to more than a billion dollars in manufacturing costs tied to steel and aluminum tariffs.
Americans Leaving the U.S. in Record Numbers: Wall Street Journal reports that “More citizens are replanting overseas, drawn by a quality of life made easily affordable by the U.S.’s enviable salaries.”
Artificial Intelligence News: Wall Street Journal drills down on “what’s really at stake in the fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon”; The Hill reports “OpenAI goes on defense as Anthropic surges after Pentagon fallout” and “GOP state lawmakers urge the White House to half efforts to block state AI laws”; and the Washington Post reports “An Ohio newspaper has a new star writer. It isn’t human.”
CFTC & Crypto: Commodity Futures Trading Commission is ‘broadly understaffed’ as it prepares for major new regulatory role – crypto oversight. - Roll Call
Long-Term Budget Outlook: Last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its Long-Term Budget Outlook Data: 2026 to 2056. Under current policies, the public debt as a percentage of GDP is projected to grow from 101% this year, to 120% in 10 years, 144% in 20 years, and 175% in 30 years. As a consequence of this enormous debt growth, annual (net) interest payments will grow from 14% of the federal budget this year to 25% in 30 years. This path is unsustainable; a serious bipartisan debt stabilization commission is needed. A successful model is the 2010 Domenici-Rivlin Commission which produced a unanimous bipartisan budget plan to stabilize the debt at 60% of GDP. The plan also included a detailed, unanimous plan to achieve long-term solvency for Social Security.
(4) President’s Budget Release Anticipated Week of March 30; Possible 2d Reconciliation Bill for Defense Increase
Roll Call reports the White House tentatively aims to release President Donald Trump’s FY 2027 budget proposal the week of March 30—two months after the statutory deadline.
Few details of the spending plan have been disclosed, beyond Trump’s announcement that he would ask for $1.5 trillion for defense, a roughly 50 percent increase from this year’s level.
Administration officials are still considering how much of that will be requested as part of the annual discretionary budget, and whether they will ask for most of the large defense increase through a second filibuster-proof reconciliation bill in order to circumvent the need for Democratic support. (Discretionary appropriations bills require 60 votes for Senate passage; reconciliation legislation requires 50 votes.)
Last week, Secretary of Treasury Bessent suggested the Administration’s retirement proposal could also be advanced through reconciliation. President Trump proposed a new, federally backed savings plan for private‑sector workers who do not have access to an employer plan, with the federal government providing up to a 1,000 dollar annual match on worker contributions.
(5) OTHER NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Elections At Risk: Washington Post reports “Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency. Activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a draft executive order that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”
Judges Under Siege: 60 Minutes spoke with 26 federal judges — nine Democratic appointees and 17 Republican, both sitting and retired — who report feeling under siege. Most would not appear on camera, fearful for their safety.
$200 billion tax cut w/o congressional action: Senators Cruz and Scott are asking Treasury to take regulatory action resulting in a $200 billion tax cut for sales of capital gains. - WP
When did disaster assistance for Americans become partisan? The Trump administration is about to release billions in disaster aid. Several blue states won’t be included. - CNN
Obamacare Deductibles Could Spike: The Trump Administration is proposing Obamacare plans it says will lower health insurance premiums, but critics warn high deductibles could make care unaffordable – NYT
CFPB – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: GovExec reports that the “fate of CFPB employees hang in the balance as judges consider agency’s future. The Trump administration is seeking authority to lay off nearly all employees at the consumer watchdog.” The agency was created after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis to provide consumer protection in dealings with credit card companies, mortgage lenders, debt collectors, student loan servicers, payday lenders, auto lenders, banks, and credit reporting agencies.
Pre-K: How Texas school vouchers could make child care more affordable. - NYT
Lead Cleanup Funds Dwindling: Federal aid for lead cleanup is dwindling; that’s a problem for cash-strapped cities. - KFF
Is MAGA Embracing Solar? Washington Post reports that “the Trump-led attack on solar eases as the right reckons with its crucial role in powering AI and keeping utility bills in check.” - WP
Data Center Threat to Power Grids: Dozens of data centers abruptly dropped off the power grid in recent Virginia incidents, forcing operators to take emergency action. - WSJ
Global Carbon Tax: Trump delayed a global carbon tax. Now he wants to finish the fight. American officials are drafting a diplomatic cable that warns dozens of countries against adopting a climate fee on the shipping industry. – Politico
Waste at DOD: Congressional earmarks provided the Department of Defense with $34 billion in “unrequested defense programs… more than 1,000 research and procurement projects the Pentagon didn’t ask for…” – Roll Call
Dueling Housing Plans: Democrats last week offered a own plan to limit investor purchases of single family homes, in response to a recent Trump Administration proposal.
Pressuring Law Firms: Administration reverses course and continues its pressure campaign on law firms it regards as unfavorable to the President. – Politico
Censoring the Park Service: An internal government database reviewed by The Washington Post demonstrates the vast scope of the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to revise or remove information on African American history, climate change and other topics at hundreds of national park sites.
Vaccine/CDC Chaos: Surgeon General nominee Casey Means, a vaccine skeptic, lacks sufficient votes for confirmation; and as measles cases climb, nine diseases threaten a comeback.
Federal Workforce Reductions: US government workforce shrinks by 12% since September 2024. “The cuts were felt across the government, with agencies such as the Treasury Department and Health and Human Services seeing relatively large decreases of 24% and 20% respectively.”
(6) Key International Development
· Europe’s Nuclear Deterrent: Financial Times reports, “France offers to deploy nuclear deterrent across Europe for first time.”
(7) THIS WEEK’S RECOMMENDED READS
How to think about Trump’s War with Iran - NYT / Friedman
In Iran, America wagers on collapse; the regime on endurance – Economist
The “State of the Union” for Small Business is dismal. – Bloomberg
Speaking engagements and press interviews can be scheduled by calling: (301) 509-5688. Email comments, suggestions, and questions to: info@trillionsweekly.com.
About the author: Charles S. Konigsberg J.D. served as Assistant Director, White House Office of Management and Budget; General Counsel at the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, where he had principal responsibility for managing federal budget and debt limit legislation; Minority Chief Counsel at the U.S. Senate Rules & Administration Committee where he advised the ranking member on budget, appropriations, trade, and tax legislation; Staff Attorney at the U.S. Senate Budget Committee where he had responsibility for federal fiscal law issues including the Impoundment Control Act and drafted the Senate’s first explanation of the congressional budget process; Director of Congressional Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and AmeriCorps; and Staff Director of the only national bipartisan budget task force to agree on a unanimous long-term debt stabilization plan.
Charles S. Konigsberg is also author of the book, Trillions: A Primer on Federal Spending, Taxes, the U.S. Debt Ceiling, and Fiscal Law. Click here to purchase.
Available for iOS and Android
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.