• Beyond Bias is a student run newsletter whose goal is to provide policy students at the University of Virginia with differing perspectives on current political topics.

• For a quick skim, read the bolded sections as they highlight key points in each piece.

• When reading the following perspectives, keep an open mind to new opinions and information as you arrive to your own conclusion about the topic.

  ---

Subscribe now

Moderate Overview:

History of ICE

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by the Homeland Security Act, passed in September 2002, following the September 11 attacks and the subsequent Global War on Terror under President George W. Bush (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, n.d.). The act sparked the largest U.S. government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, including the birth of what would become U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March 2003 (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, n.d.). In response to national security concerns, Congress granted ICE a unique combination of civil and criminal authorities, absorbing most responsibilities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service, and establishing the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, n.d.).

Since its inception, ICE has been reshaped by each presidential administration. President Bush prioritized factors such as a person’s length of U.S. residence, criminal history, humanitarian concerns, likelihood of deportation, eligibility for immigration status, cooperation with law enforcement, and honorable military service when determining who to detain (American Immigration Council, 2023).

Dubbed the “Deporter-In-Chief” (Chishti et al., 2017), Democratic President Barack Obama narrowed ICE’s focus to two populations: individuals with serious criminal convictions and those who had recently entered the country unlawfully (American Immigration Council, n.d.). His administration ended the Secure Communities program, which had targeted those with minor or no criminal records, replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program (American Immigration Council, n.d.). Despite this narrower focus, the Obama administration deported approximately 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, a historic figure (American Immigration Council, n.d.).

President Trump’s first term reversed course, refocusing ICE on deporting all undocumented individuals, regardless of criminal history. Shortly after taking office, he signed an executive order to increase ICE staffing by 10,000 agents (with an actual increase of about 6,100) and expand its enforcement powers (Volle, 2026).

President Biden again narrowed enforcement priorities to three groups: national security threats, those apprehended at the border unlawfully, and individuals posing a public safety risk (American Immigration Council, 2023). However, the American Immigration Council found that from February to November 2021, nearly half of detainers were issued against individuals outside these stated categories (American Immigration Council, 2023).

In his second term, President Trump has once again broadened ICE’s mandate to target all unauthorized immigrants. His administration eliminated longstanding policies prohibiting ICE arrests at “sensitive locations” such as hospitals, schools, and houses of worship (Chishti et al., 2026). On July 4, 2025, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, allocating $45 billion to build new immigrant detention centers and $30 billion to expand enforcement and deportation operations (Haddock & Roy, 2026).

ICE is a young agency born out of crisis. With only five administrations of experience, each of which has meaningfully altered its direction, the central question remains: are the current directives to ICE unprecedented, a natural reflection of shifting political priorities, or a departure from the agency’s original purpose? As the agency continues to evolve, it will cement its contemporary identity and role in American society.

written by Savannah Raley

Conservative Perspective:

Why We Need ICE

No government agency is perfect, but the intended role of ICE is a necessary one. Since its inception, ICE has taken on different roles. Its primary goal has always been to enforce our immigration laws. Despite the issues many people have taken with the manner in which ICE has executed its tasks since the start of the second Trump administration, the overall majority of Americans have the same stance: deport immigrants living illegally in the United States, regardless of if they commit another crime since they entered illegally. Coming into the United States illegally is a crime in and of itself.

54 percent of Americans support deporting all illegal immigrants living in the United States (Toplines: September 2025 times/Siena national poll of registered voters - The New York Times 2025). Actions have consequences, and laws must be enforced in order to preserve the integrity of the nation. When I hear liberals talking about immigration, they misconstrue the issues with immigration that people are critiquing. They claim that entering the country illegally is a “civil offense,” but it is only a civil offense when you enter the country legally on a visa but unlawfully overstay your visa. Crossing the border unlawfully is a criminal offense.

Democratic-run states and cities have resorted to enacting “sanctuary” policies, which ultimately harms immigration law enforcement. What sanctuary policies do is effectively end collaboration between local and federal law enforcement officers, and without that cooperation, there is more tension and struggle in enacting federal law enforcement. Federal law reigns supreme, and so by refusing to cooperate with ICE, local officials prevent smoother operations of federal law enforcement. Especially in the realm of immigration policy, the federal government has the ultimate say. Given the priorities of the Trump administration, deportations are a priority and so ICE raids will continue to happen. By restricting local authorities from cooperating with ICE through sanctuary policies, ICE conducts more aggressive raids and that leads to tensions in local communities (Castellanos-Canales, 2026).

The functions of ICE are essential. They enforce immigration law through deportation operations, investigations of transnational criminal organizations, and manage the necessary channels for these functions to occur. Having the specialized department with ICE helps focus resources and create specialists that help to enforce immigration law swiftly.

In closing, it is important to keep ICE because they enforce our laws. It is that simple: we have laws to enforce and people to protect. It is not inhumane to deport people who are in the US illegally. We do not need to wait until they commit yet another crime beyond their illegal entry. Enforce our laws, protect our people by protecting our border.

written by Zac Toimil

Liberal Perspective:

Ice Under Trump: Law and Order or Violence and Terror?

An internal DHS memo retrieved through an FOIA request revealed that ICE was responsible for a 400 percent increase in use of force incidents in 2025 (Department of Homeland Security, 2026). That memo was sent out less than a year before Renee Good and Alex Pretti were shot and killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. ICE is also liable for the deaths of 46 detainees since Trump took office last year (Ulloa et al., 2026). This is all the result of the President’s expansion of ICE. After constant rhetoric about shrinking the bureaucracy, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made ICE’s budget bigger than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined (Chappell, 2026). This $75 billion injection has not led to more law and order, but rather a spike in state-sanctioned violence. ICE is no longer an organization focused on public safety, they are an extension of Trump’s executive power whose purpose is to incite conflict and promote xenophobia.

One of the most common justifications for the expansion of ICE is that it will provide more jobs for native-born Americans. However, the general consensus among economists is that deportation programs reduce the employment rate of US-born workers (East, 2024). It is not as simple as one immigrant leaving the US, and one job opening for a US citizen. What is usually overlooked is that immigrants work in different sectors of the economy than US-born workers, and immigrants create demand for goods and services that boosts the entire US economy. Immigrant labor complements native born labor, it is not a substitute. So either President Trump is ignorant of the consensus among economists, or he is orchestrating a massive deportation campaign for other reasons.

In an interview with Ezra Klein, Atlantic journalist Caitlin Dickerson said that “ICE is now going against all of its former training to make arrests as dramatic as possible, to do them in the streets in front of the general public, inviting conflicts that then lead to protesting and to escalations” (Klein & McCordick, 2026). Trump’s ICE wants to create fear and division among Americans. They want to use the image of a masked, paramilitary agent sent by the federal government to scare immigrants into leaving on their own. In addition to the rhetoric of fear and armed executive enforcement, there is a clear narrative of xenophobia coming from the Trump administration. The day after the shooting of two National Guard members in November 2025, the President promised to deport anyone deemed “non-compatible with Western civilization” (Cameron, 2025). This rhetoric clearly associates ICE with the objectives of white nationalist ideology. ICE is being used as a political weapon used to promote extreme nationalism.

According to Pew, a majority of Americans think that ICE deportations have gone “too far” (Hartig, 2025). ICE under Trump has nothing to do with making the lives of Americans better or delivering on a campaign promise, it has everything to do with promoting white nationalist ideals and expanding the armed enforcement apparatus of the executive branch. The Left cannot continue to sit idly by and let an authoritarian President use a paramilitary force to terrorize America. These immigrants do not have official legal protection from the Trump regime because the American government hasn’t given them a legitimate, reasonable path to citizenship. If Democrats want to act as Leftists, they need to quickly and efficiently enact new immigration policy that is equitable for all. If they don’t, then the Democrats will be paving the way for a new right wing authoritarian candidate to seize power.

written by Luke Scrogham

Have any lingering questions? Want to add a unique perspective? Have a request for a future topic? Leave a comment below!

Leave a comment

edited by Zara Yokoyama and Mandolyn Hanson

Citations

American Immigration Council. (2023). ICE enforcement priorities. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/ice-enforcement-priorities/

American Immigration Council. (n.d.). President Obama’s legacy on immigration. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/president-obamas-legacy-immigration/

Cameron, C. (2025, December 10). Trump’s Speech on Economy Veers Into an Anti-Immigrant Tirade. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/trump-somalis-immigrants.html

Castellanos-Canales, A. (2026, January 28). Are sanctuary policies unlawful? state and municipal prerogatives to collaborate with Federal Immigration Authorities. National Immigration Forum. https://forumtogether.org/article/are-sanctuary-policies-unlawful-state-and-municipal-prerogatives-to-collaborate-with-federal-immigration-authorities/

Chappell, B. (2026, January 21). How ICE grew to be the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5674887/ice-budget-funding-congress-trump

Chishti, M., Bush-Joseph, K., & Putzel-Kavanaugh, C. (2026, January). Unleashing power in new ways: Immigration in the first year of Trump 2.0. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-2-immigration-1st-year

Chishti, M., Pierce, S., & Bolter, J. (2017, January 25). The Obama record on deportations: Deporter in chief or not? Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not

Department of Homeland Security. (2026, February 13). ICE Records Regarding Sensitive Zones, Workplace Raids, and Enforcement Tactics (Case Number 2025-ICLI-00065). American Oversight. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26955110-ice-records-regarding-sensitive-zones-workplace-raids-and-enforcement-tactics/

East, C. (2024, September 18). The labor market impact of deportations. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/

Haddock, K., & Roy, D. (2026, February 27). ICE and deportations: How Trump is reshaping immigration enforcement. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/ice-and-deportations-how-trump-reshaping-immigration-enforcement

Hartig, H. (2025, December 15). On deportations, growing shares say Trump administration is doing ‘too much.’ Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/15/growing-shares-say-the-trump-administration-is-doing-too-much-to-deport-immigrants-in-the-us-illegally/

Klein, E., & McCordick, J. (2026, January 23). Opinion | Minneapolis Reveals Where Trump’s Deportation Agenda Is Going. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-caitlin-dickerson.html

The New York Times. (2025, September 29). Toplines: September 2025 times/Siena national poll of registered voters - The New York Times. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/02/polls/times-siena-poll-toplines.html

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). History. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.ice.gov/features/history

Ulloa, J., McCann, A., & Mega, E. R. (2026, March 29). Deaths in ICE Custody Are Growing. ‘They Let Him Rot in There.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/us/ice-detention-deaths-immigrants.html

Volle, A. (2026, March 30). United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Immigration-and-Customs-Enforcement

Readers Guide:

• Beyond Bias is a student run newsletter whose goal is to provide policy students at the University of Virginia with differing perspectives on current political topics.

• For a quick skim, read the bolded sections as they highlight key points in each piece.

• When reading the following perspectives, keep an open mind to new opinions and information as you arrive to your own conclusion about the topic.

Subscribe now

A Moderate Overview

Will the SAVE America Act Save American Election Integrity?

The SAVE America Act—an act that President Trump flagged as the “most important and consequential pieces of legislation in the history of Congress and America”—is enduring its third week of Senate debate (Carney et al., 2026). The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requires voters to provide documented proof of citizenship and a valid photo ID when voting, aiming to ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote. The U.S. House passed the Act in February after several iterations had circulated in Congress for two years (Ambrose & Popat, 2026). The Senate voted (51-48) to debate SAVE America, but contentious negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, and even within the Republican Party, have further delayed a final decision on the bill. The fervor surrounding the SAVE America Act comes from its timely position at the intersection of two national tensions: concerns about mass electoral fraud, especially in presidential elections, and immigration and citizenship. It sparks debate about the appropriate balance between safeguarding American elections and voting accessibility.

Federal law states that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal and state elections. States decide how to enforce this law and can accept different identifications like driver’s licenses, REAL IDs, student IDs, hunting licenses, tribal IDs, or others at the ballot (9 Things to Know About the Proposed SAVE America Act, 2026). These forms of identification may not denote the voter’s citizenship status. Under SAVE America, voters registering to vote by mail or absentee ballot must first submit proof of citizenship. At the polls, voters must bring a pre-approved form of photo ID and reaffirm their citizenship, perhaps through a passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. States must also run their voter lists through the Systematic Alien Verification of Eligibility system to flag potential noncitizens on their voter rolls (9 Things to Know About the Proposed SAVE America Act, 2026). A recent addition to the bill would restrict valid reasons for absentee voting to instances such as serious illness, disability, military duty, or travel (Bolton, 2026).

Those who oppose the bill say it would disenfranchise the 21 million voters who do not have access to citizenship-verifying identification and present barriers to certain demographics, such as married women, rural voters, disabled voters, and more (Faguy & Drenon, 2026). Moreover, some claim that SAVE America is federal overreach, given that Article I of the Constitution provides states the power to conduct federal elections as they see fit. Proponents say that it protects elections from potential voter fraud by non-citizens (Kochi, 2026). Moreover, its proponents argue that the Act would simply codify a belief that the majority of polled voters already hold: that government-issued IDs should be required at polls (Faguy & Drenon, 2026).

Currently, the bill does not have the 60 votes (due to the filibuster rule) needed to pass. Senate Republicans remain divided on how to successfully advance the bill, as Senate Democrats fiercely oppose it. Meanwhile, the very question that SAVE America attempts to answer remains: how should the U.S. best draw the boundaries of democratic participation?

written by Manmayi Ghaisas

The Conservative Perspective:

American Citizens Decide American Elections

Legitimate elections are the foundation of a healthy democracy. The SAVE America Act reinforces that foundation by requiring voter eligibility verification before a ballot is cast, through documentary proof of citizenship at registration and stricter photo identification at the ballot box. Voter identification is not controversial, with broad bipartisan support (including 71% of Democrats) and broad support across races (including 76% of Black Americans and 82% of Latino voters) (Knowles, 2026). Support extends to the SAVE America Act itself, too: 71% of voters back the bill, alongside strong majorities for both proof-of-citizenship and stricter voter ID provisions (Robertson, 2026). The exception: elected Democrats.

So why do elected Democrats rail against voter ID? One explanation is that some are willing to tolerate vulnerabilities in the voting system in pursuit of higher turnout—even if that risks improper or poorly verified voting. Yet federal law is clear: Only U.S. citizens may vote in federal and state elections. The real question, then, is not whether citizenship matters, but whether—and to what extent—we verify it.

Verifying the Vote, Twice

Let’s start with voter ID. Democrat insistence that such identification disenfranchises minority voters reflects the bigotry of low expectations: The assumption that minority voters cannot get an ID—which is required to fly commercially, marry, open bank accounts, drive, own guns, rent a home, and even purchase Mucinex—is demonstrably false and actually racist (Lugas, 2021). In fact, 38 states—red and blue alike—already require some form of voter ID (Robertson, 2026). The SAVE America Act is more stringent, but it doesn’t break new ground; it standardizes an already accepted principle: Verifying identity is basic governance.

The proof-of-citizenship requirement is more controversial. Most states currently rely on mere self-attestation, while the Act requires documentary proof and moves verification to the front end of the process—voter registration. That shift is critical, as 19 states and the District of Columbia issue driver’s licenses to residents regardless of immigration status, including noncitizens and illegal aliens (NCSL, 2023). Those policies may serve other purposes, but they prove that identification alone doesn’t establish citizenship.

The bill permits a range of acceptable documents, including a birth certificate, a naturalization certificate, or a U.S. passport, as well as alternatives for those who lack standard documentation (Robertson, 2026). Critics, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, disingenuously argue this requirement is too burdensome, with Schumer misleadingly citing a study showing that about 9% of Americans wouldn’t be able to immediately locate the necessary documents (Robertson, 2026; Rothschild, 2025). But “unable to show tomorrow” isn’t the same as “not obtainable.” Indeed, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, points out that the law wouldn’t deprive anyone of the right to vote—it may make voter registration more administratively demanding, but not inaccessible (Robertson, 2026).

What’s at Stake

Ultimately, this debate isn’t about disenfranchisement or fraud—it’s about trust. Elections require confidence, and even perceived vulnerabilities can erode it. That confidence is already slipping (no thanks to President Trump): Only 60% of Americans say they trust the upcoming 2026 midterm election process, a 17-point drop since 2024 (Kiderra, 2026). Systems that cannot clearly verify voter eligibility invite doubt, so proactively preventing disputes is better than trying to resolve them after the fact.

As Representative Henry Cuellar, the only House Democrat voting for the bill, states, “American citizens should decide American elections” (Lott, 2026). That principle is straightforward. Elections underpin our republic. Proof of citizenship and identity verification aren’t radical—they set the minimum standard needed for an electoral system to protect the validity of every legitimate vote and inspire confidence in the integrity of election results.

written by Ruby Garrison

The Liberal Perspective

The Save America Act Isn’t Saving Anything

Since January, the SAVE America Act has secured its spot in the national conversation. Unlike its predecessor, the SAVE Act, this version has been pushed with far more urgency and political force by both the Trump administration and the Republican Party (Becker & Bacskai, 2026). If passed, it will drastically change how Americans register and vote, potentially excluding millions from the ballot (Orey et al., 2026).

Republicans argue this bill is essential to protect the integrity of our election system, claiming it’s become compromised by the threat of noncitizen voting, despite evidence that noncitizen voting is rare and has virtually no impact on election outcomes (Orey et al., 2026).

In fact, in 2025, when state election offices began using federal verification systems to monitor voter eligibility, just 0.04% of voter verification cases were returned as noncitizens (Orey et al., 2026). This bill, which will prevent more eligible Americans from voting than any other bill in U.S. history, essentially presents a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (Array; Monteil, 2026).

Thus, Republicans have begun to pivot in another direction by emphasizing the broad public support for voter ID laws and the vast bipartisan support for the SAVE America Act (House, 2026). However, this framing is misleading and overlooks studies revealing widespread public misunderstanding of the bill’s premise. For example, one study showed that when Americans learned the true implications of the SAVE Act, their support for it declined from 50% to 45% (Kate, 2026).

What the Bill Actually Does

This bill mandates documentary proof of citizenship in either the form of a birth certificate or passport, documents that, for many, are incredibly hard to obtain (Orey & Adler, 2026). It would shift the burden of voter verification to individuals, adding so much complexity to the registration process that it could exclude an estimated 9% of eligible voters nationwide who lack access to citizenship documentation. Additionally, it would make it much harder for the 11% of eligible voters who cannot easily access their birth certificate, and for more than half of those registered who lack a valid passport (Orey et al., 2026). It would also restrict mail-in voting, heightening personal security risks and burdening election officials (Orey et al., 2026).

The barriers this bill presents will affect millions, but some will feel the effects far more than others. Civil rights advocates have already begun referring to the SAVE America Act as “Jim Crow 2.0” for its similarities with past legislation that prevented Black citizens from voting (Tensley, 2026). Furthermore, 68 million women whose documents no longer match their married names, along with low-income individuals, working-class members, and rural voters, will all face greater barriers to registration (Bedekovics & Bryant, 2025).

This is Voter Suppression

This bill is modern-day voter suppression. Rather than strengthening our system, it will introduce barriers that prevent roughly 28.4 million eligible citizens, particularly those who have been historically marginalized, from participating in the democratic process (Orey & Adler, 2026). This is nothing new; America has an extensive history of using both legal and illegal tactics to encourage voter suppression (Monteil, 2026).

This bill exists within a broader context of growing challenges brought on by Republican legislators and the Trump administration, as they work to undermine the public’s electoral trust. The Trump Administration prioritizes one end goal above all else: holding on to power, and this is made consistently evident in his rhetoric, in which he suggests that voting is a privilege (Bedekovics, 2026). Trump has also been a very vocal advocate of the SAVE America Act, which he has stated would “guarantee victories” for Republicans in “every election for a long time” (Monteil, 2026).

If We Really Want to Save America, This Isn’t the Answer

Despite claims to the contrary, America does not need saving from some non-existent threat. If we are serious about protecting the integrity of our election system, we must fight for policies that strengthen our voting system without excluding millions of people. If we truly want to “save” America, it is clear this isn’t the answer.

written by Annaliese Sutton

Special Edition by Andrew Markwalter

Beyond the Ballot: The Administrative Reality of the SAVE Act

Public discussion of the SAVE Act has focused largely on election integrity and voter access. However, a more important question sits beneath those debates: how will election systems actually implement this policy?

The SAVE Act requires individuals to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a passport or birth certificate—to register to vote in federal elections, alongside existing identification requirements (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2026a). Although federal law already restricts voting to citizens and documented cases of noncitizen voting remain rare, the Act changes how election systems verify that requirement in practice (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2026a).

From an institutional perspective, the central issue is administrative burden. Election officials must build new verification processes, update systems, and take on additional responsibilities to implement proof-of-citizenship requirements. In many cases, the Act would require voters to submit documentation in person, limiting the use of mail registration and increasing processing demands (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2026a).

At the same time, many eligible voters do not have immediate access to the required documentation. Researchers estimate that roughly 12% of registered voters—approximately 28 million Americans—lack ready access to common forms of proof like passports or qualifying birth certificates (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2026b). Even when voters possess documentation, discrepancies such as name changes or non-standard formats can complicate verification.

These requirements operate within a highly decentralized election system. States and local jurisdictions administer elections differently, which means implementation will vary across the country. Without standardized infrastructure, the same federal requirement can produce very different voter experiences depending on location.

Policy outcomes depend not only on legislative intent but also on execution. Election officials must verify documentation, manage increased workloads, and navigate legal ambiguity, often without additional resources or standardized tools. These operational realities shape how voters experience the law in practice.

The SAVE Act ultimately highlights a broader pattern in public policy: a gap between legislation and implementation. Regardless of one’s position on the bill, its impact will depend not only on what it mandates but also on how effectively—and equitably—institutions carry out those mandates.

Understanding that distinction is essential for evaluating not just this policy, but how governance, infrastructure, and access interact in practice.

written by Andrew Markwalter

Leave a comment

Edited by Alek Gorgenson and Mandolyn Hanson

Citations

217, & 10161. (2026, February 3). New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting | Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-save-act-bills-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting

9 Things to Know About the Proposed SAVE America Act -... (2026, March 23).
National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/9-things-to-know-about-the-proposed-save-america-act

Ambrose, T., & Popat, S. (2026, March 17). US
Senate heeds Trump’s call to debate restrictive Save America Act voting bill. The Guardian. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/17/save-act-senate-voting-bill

Bipartisan Policy Center. (2026a). Five things to know
about the SAVE America Act. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

Bipartisan Policy Center. (2026b). Do documentary proof of citizenship requirements disadvantage one party more than the other? https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/do-documentary-proof-of-citizenship-requirements-disadvantage-one-party-more-than-the-other/

Bolton, A. (2026, March 17). Republicans
collide with Trump over no-excuse absentee voting, SAVE Act. The Hill. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5786819-save-america-act-absentee-voting/

Carney, J., Hooper, K., Ward, M., Hill, M. L., Tully, K.,
& Wendler, J. (2026, March 17). Senate
launches debate on SAVE America Act with endgame uncertain. Politico. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/17/congress/senate-launches-debate-on-trump-backed-elections-bill-00832602

Faguy, A., & Drenon, B. (2026, March 19). What is the SAVE America Act and what would it do? BBC. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk845r4vlyo

Kate. (2026, March 19). The More Americans Learn About the SAVE Act, the
Less They Like It. Navigator Research.
https://navigatorresearch.org/the-more-americans-learn-about-the-save-act-the-less-they-like-it/

Kiderra, I. (2026, February 18). Trust in Elections Declines across Party Lines Ahead of 2026 Midterms, UC San Diego Survey Finds. UC San Diego Today. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/trust-in-elections-declines-across-party-lines-ahead-of-2026-midterms-uc-san-diego-survey-finds

Knowles, M. (2026, February 12). CNN polling cuts against a key Democrat narrative. https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-polling-cuts-against-a-key-democrat-narrative

Kochi, S. (2026, March 22). This week on the
Hill: Marathon debate on SAVE America Act enters second week. The Hill. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5794004-save-america-act-dhs-mullin/

Lott, J. R., Jr. (2026, February 18). Virtually all countries support
voter photo ID - so why the filibuster? Yahoo News.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/virtually-countries-support-voter-photo-025247320.html?guccounter=1

Lugas, M. (2021, May 3). The bigotry of low expectations: the racist, illogical attacks on voter I.D. Fordham Political Review. https://fordhampoliticalreview.org/the-bigotry-of-low-expectations-the-racist-illogical-attacks-on-voter-i-d/

NCSL. (2023). States Offering Driver’s Licenses to Immigrants. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/immigration/states-offering-drivers-licenses-to-immigrants

Robertson, L. (2026, March 20). Q&A on the SAVE America Act - FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2026/03/qa-on-the-save-america-act/

Rothschild, J., Novey, S., & Hanmer, M. (2025). Who Lacks Documentary Proof of Citizenship? In Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. University of Maryland. https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/Who%20Lacks%20Documentary%20Proof%20of%20Citizenship%20March%202025.pdf

Sharille. (2026, March 16). Do Documentary Proof of Citizenship Requirements Disadvantage One Party More Than the Other? • Bipartisan Policy Center. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/do-documentary-proof-of-citizenship-requirements-disadvantage-one-party-more-than-the-other/

Tensley, B. (2026, March 18). ‘Jim Crow 2.0’: Civil Rights Leaders Sound Alarm on SAVE America Act. Capital B News. https://capitalbnews.org/save-act-voting-requirements-explained/

The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts. (2025, January 31). Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/

The SAVE America Act Explained: How the New ‘Show Your Papers’ Voting Bill Is Even More Extreme Than the SAVE Act. (2026, February 27). Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-america-act-explained-how-the-new-show-your-papers-voting-bill-is-even-more-extreme-than-the-save-act/

The SAVE America Act Is A Throwback To Jim Crow Voter Suppression | National Urban League. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2026, from https://nul.org/news/save-america-act-throwback-jim-crow-voter-suppression

visceral_dev_admin. (2026, February 2). Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

Vote.org. (2026). The SAVE Act. https://www.vote.org/save-act/

Readers Guide:

• Beyond Bias is a student run newsletter whose goal is to provide policy students at the University of Virginia with differing perspectives on current political topics.

• For a quick skim, read the bolded sections as they highlight key insights.

• When reading the following perspectives, keep an open mind to new opinions and information as you arrive to your own conclusion about the topic.

• This week we have a new perspective as Ashley Elliott dives into what’s happening in the courts!

• Scroll to the bottom to view our voters guide and make sure your voice is heard!

Non-Partisan Overview: Hoo’s Map is it Anyways?

Has your mailbox recently been inundated with fliers about the new Virginia Redistricting Referendum? Mine has, and mostly with materials that seem to promote only one side of the story. Some feel the pamphlets are egregiously misleading with references to earlier periods of disenfranchisement in American history, while others believe frequent redistricting is where we are headed if such changes are successful (Schneider, 2026b).

There is also a buzz amongst eligible voters across the state and Grounds, as many are excited to cast their vote in favor of this new referendum. The referendum has drawn endorsements from former President Obama and the current Virginia Governor (and UVA alumna!) Abigail Spanberger (Schneider, 2026b). This debate, in the lead-up to Election Day on April 21st, has captured the attention of national news outlets, eager to dissect the decision. This week, headline after headline analyzed what hangs in the balance of voters’ decision: redistrict the state or not?

Let’s start from the top. The ballot question for Virginia voters reads,

“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?” (Virginia Department of Elections, 2026).

Redistricting is the process of updating voting district maps after the U.S. Census takes place every ten years (Li, 2025). This is done to ensure representation for changing populations (Li, 2025). The term “gerrymandering” is more often used when people feel maps have been manipulated for political gain (Tucker, 2024). Social media images have circulated explaining gerrymandering through the image of a pie (When We All Vote, 2026). Normal redistricting in the pie would be a normally cut, appropriately sized piece. But gerrymandering is represented as cutting a jigsaw puzzle piece from the middle.

This special election is asking voters for permission to redraw the maps before the scheduled 2031 date IF another state redraws its maps (Virginia Department of Elections, 2026). Without passage, the current Virginia voting map stays in effect until 2031 (Virginia Department of Elections, 2026). The proposal is in response to redistricting that has happened in other states, making the issue increasingly political (Schneider, 2026a). Last year, President Trump urged Texas to redraw their maps earlier, prompting California to do the same, which in turn has initiated a bit of a redistricting war (Schneider, 2026a).

The new proposed map, with redrawn districts, would flip up to four seats to Democrats. Of the eleven Congressional seats in Virginia, the six seats held by Democrats may grow to ten, and Republicans shrink from five to one (Schneider, 2026a).

Now, adding to an already exciting situation, many lawsuits have been filed. Generally, Republicans are questioning whether such a change in law is acceptable procedurally and are questioning the wording of the proposal. Others argue that there has not been enough notice about the issue before the voting period. The lawsuits were originally resolved in favor of Republicans against the referendum, as a judge ordered a stop to map changes. But it was appealed, and the Virginia Supreme Court held that the referendum can proceed with the caveat that hearings about the legality are set for AFTER the referendum vote. This means that there is even a chance that the referendum passes, only to then be nullified by the courts (Schneider, 2026a).

Though Democrats and Republicans disagree on the outcome, members of both parties seem to recognize the lasting impact such a redistricting effort would have on the political landscape for the next few years - particularly the upcoming midterms. And each party is arguing for “fair maps,” but this seems to mean different things to different people (Schneider, 2026b).

Those who take a step back from the partisanship that is at the core of the debate may feel some sadness about its very nature. Politically motivated redistricting is not a new thing (“gerrymandering” was a phrase coined in 1812), but one may wonder if continuously fighting fire with fire and advancing agendas only through the manipulation of seats is the best answer for the long term health of a successful government (Tucker, 2024). This issue raises important questions about partisanship and democratic values.

No matter where you fall on this issue, make sure to vote! Check-out our voters guide at the end of this week’s newsletter.

written by Emma Pyles

Conservative Perspective

The 2026 midterm election cycle has been tense, and Virginia’s state government is doing everything it can to rig these elections to favor Democrats. The focus of the state government should be to represent its people, not their party. However, there is no concern for ensuring Virginians have proper representation, just for their party to control Congress.

Virginians voted for a fair redistricting commission in 2020 by a large margin. Nearly two-thirds of all Virginians voted for fair, unbiased maps (Virginia Question 1, Redistricting Commission Amendment (2020) 2020). The maps enacted in 2022 led to fair outcomes that reflect how Virginians voted. In 2024, 51.4% of Virginians voted for Democrats in their US House races, while 47.64% of Virginians voted for Republicans; in line with maps, this led to 6 Democrat representatives and 5 Republican representatives elected (2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia 2026). If enacted, this map hands Democrats 10 seats, leaving Republicans with just 1 House seat. So, Democrats, who won 51.4% of Virginia’s voters in the last House election cycle, would hold 91% of Virginia’s House seats, leaving the 47.64% of Virginians who voted Republican with 9% of the seats.

Prominent Virginia Republicans have pushed back against this proposal. Former Attorney General Jason Miyares is now leading a group called the Virginians for Fair Maps, which is advocating against the amendment, and has condemned this as “an extreme partisan redistricting amendment” that “shocks the conscience” due to how “blatant” of a “power grab this is” (Nuechterlein, 2026). I agree with Miyares.

This proposed amendment is not meant to “restore fairness,” it’s meant to take away Republican representation in Virginia to benefit Democrats nationally. It is a disingenuous power grab being framed as “fairness,” because to Democrats, it’s only fair if they win. Looking at the proposed map, “fair” is the least fitting word. It draws multiple rural constituencies entirely disconnected from major cities into the Northern Virginia area, detaching them from their community interests, only to distort the balance of power and give Democrats free seats.

This amendment is a maneuver by Democrats to unfairly tip the balance of Virginia to help Democrats win the House in November. Democrats should be concerned about their odds of winning, since President Trump and the Republican Party both have higher net favorability ratings than the Democratic Party, despite all the controversy and negative press (Trump: Favorable/unfavorable 2026; Republican Party Favorability 2026; Democratic Party Favorability 2026). Again, the Republican Party and President Trump continue to be more favored by the American people than the Democratic Party. Poll trends also show that winning moderate and right-leaning voters will be an uphill battle for Democrats. THIS is why Democrats are desperate to push this amendment through, knowing they can’t win seats without drowning out conservative constituencies in Virginia.

It is easier to try to manipulate Virginians into believing they are voting for fair elections than to run a fair campaign to flip seats. Virginians voted for a fair redistricting commission by an overwhelming margin back in 2020, and those fair maps have led to fair, proportional representation in Congress. Virginia Democrats, however, are willing to throw the will of the people out the window for their convenience.

I would like to end this piece with wise words from Virginia’s current Governor Abigail Spanberger, who, before conveniently changing her tune, said: “Gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy and it weakens the individual voices that form our electorate. Opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority (2019)” (Minock, 2026).

Don’t silence Virginians, vote NO on this attempt to rig the midterms against what Virginians want: fair maps and fair representation.

written by Zac Toimil

Liberal Perspective

As the 2026 midterm elections loom, the stakes feel existential for many Democrats. With President Donald Trump’s latest abuse of presidential power culminating in bloody conflict in the Middle East, congressional Democrats feel every ounce of imperative to wield oversight power over this lawless administration. Given the inherent difficulty posed by this cycle’s Senate map, many of these hopes for oversight rest on the party being able to win back control of the House of Representatives. The national political environment should suffice to grant Democrats a majority in the chamber (Silver & McKown-Dawson, 2026), with Trump’s economic mismanagement seeming to have lost him support among undecided voters who may have been otherwise inclined to overlook foreign misadventure in the Middle East. But as is true of much of the Trump era, a bomb has been lobbed into the middle of a somewhat predictable political dynamic.

This bomb has come in the form of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering, kicked off last summer by Trump’s entreaties (Goodman & Goldmacher, 2025) to Texas’s Republican legislature. While there is nothing unusual (Kenny et al., 2023) about the sad spectacle of state legislators rigging congressional maps to calcify their own political power, the fact of it happening roughly five years prior to the next census portends calamity regarding the electoral sanctity of this year’s elections. Thankfully, Democrats have not rolled over while Republicans unilaterally attempted to rig the 2026 map. Through a variety of measures that most notably included a sweeping ballot referendum in California (Reston 2025), the party has fought the redistricting wars to a near-draw. On the heels of a successful gubernatorial election this past November, Virginia Democrats have now stepped into the fray.

As a matter of principle, it needs to be said that political gerrymandering is an abhorrent practice. While the incentives to self-perpetuate power are persuasive for even the most principled politicians, almost no intellectual justification can be offered for its continuation on a broad basis. When districts are drawn to ensure partisan advantage, the primary electorate has no credible incentive to nominate candidates interested in moderating to meet the median voter where they are. Elections are easily won, but the work of legislating is made harder by a greater proliferation of self-styled firebrands (Troiano, 2021) in one of Congress’s two chambers. Also, distorted maps are just outright unfair.

All of that having been said, principle alone will not keep our democracy afloat for three more years. For Americans, that lesson has been learned the hard way. As anyone who remembers the 2021 attack on the Capitol can attest, the Trump-era Republican Party has precisely zero interest (The New York Times Editorial Board, 2025) in upholding the norms that have kept our democratic republic intact for nearly 250 years. Given the extent to which his 2020 election lies have served as litmus tests (Cook et al., 2025) for key stakeholders in his second term, voters have every reason to believe that state power will be leveraged to preserve Republican power over the next few elections. With these as the stakes, Virginia Democrats are right to pursue these countermeasures in order to combat Trumpism over the next two election cycles.

As the ballot referendum stands, the wording specifies that Virginia’s bipartisan process for drawing congressional districts will be reinstated (Virginia Department of Elections, 2026) following the 2030 census. For the sake of their own political integrity, it is imperative that Democrats keep this promise. While there is no guarantee that our constitutional emergency will fully subside come 2030, partisan gerrymandering cannot continue to be common practice. Democrats need to take extreme short-term measures to secure power, before ultimately moving to eliminate the practice nationwide. With Congress currently cowed by the whims of an autocratic president (Wong et al., 2025), the future health of our democratic republic may well depend on it.

written by Charles Burns

New Perspective: What’s happening in the courts?

The redistricting amendment slated for the April 2026 election in Virginia, HJ4, is riddled with legal questions and considerations. Historically, the Supreme Court has followed the legal precedents formed by Baker v. Carr (1962) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), which state that political questions fall beyond the reach of SCOTUS. Thus, the highest court is not likely to provide any ruling regarding this case. Based on the Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct, justices must act in a non-partisan capacity, limiting their ability to rule on cases formed strictly on partisan grounds (Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct, 2022, Canon 2).

However, the appearance of the potential amendment, HJ4, to Article II Section 6-A of the Virginia constitution has sparked the interest of the state courts. Following lawsuits filed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee, the Tazewell Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order on the basis of cited illegal timing and phrasing within the ballot question (Republican National Committee et al. v Koski et al., 2026). It should be noted that these lawsuits do not proceed by claiming that the amendment as provided is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.

The Virginia Supreme Court has since stated that they will allow the referendum to proceed to a vote while the court reviews the appeal, citing that “Virginia courts generally should not prematurely enjoin an upcoming election” (Koski et al. v Republican National Committee et al., 2026). The Virginia Supreme Court’s appearance in this case is notable, as it highlights the basis by which the cases filed were formed. Due to the cases citing procedural components instead of politically motivated questions, the court is able to rule on the outcomes of this amendment.

Ultimately, the court’s actions on the case depend on the outcome of the vote. Should the majority vote no on April 21^st to the amendment, the Virginia Supreme Court will not rule on the case. In the case that the majority of voters vote yes to HJ4, the Virginia Supreme Court has stated they will take up the case (Koski et al. v Republican National Committee et al., 2026). Should this be the outcome of the vote, the court will need to decide if the phrasing of the ballot question – specifically the phrase “restore fairness” – and the timeline of the amendment violates the Virginia State Constitution. Based on their verdict, the court will also have to decide which, if any, rectifying actions are appropriate to reconcile this outcome with what is legally sound.

written by Ashley Elliott

Voter’s Guide:

No matter where you fall on this issue, if you are registered to vote in Virginia, make sure you learn about the issue, and participate in Early Voting happening March 6 through April 18.

Request an absentee ballot, register to vote, check your registration, find your polling location using the following link:

https://vote.elections.virginia.gov/VoterInformation

Vote on Election Day on Tuesday, April 21 to make your voice heard on the Virginia Redistricting Referendum.

Edited by Elizabeth Imoh and Mandolyn Hanson

Citations

18-422 Rucho v. Common Cause (06/27/2019). (n.d.).

Baker v. Carr. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2026, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6

Ballotpedia. (2020). Virginia Question 1, Redistricting Commission Amendment (2020). Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_Question_1,_Redistricting_Commission_Amendment_(2020)

Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia | Virginia Court System. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2026, from https://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_112398

Circuit_court_of_tazewell_county-order.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2026, from https://statecourtreport.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/circuit_court_of_tazewell_county-order.pdf

Cook, N., Mohsin, S., & Hordern, A. (2025, March 6). Trump team tests job seekers by asking who won the 2020 election. Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-team-tests-job-seekers-by-asking-who-won-the-2020-election

deVilla, J. (2022, March 14). A lesson from pie on Pi Day. The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century. https://www.joeydevilla.com/2022/03/14/a-lesson-from-pie-on-pi-day/

Goodman, J. D. (2025, June 9). White House pushes Texas to redistrict, hoping to blunt Democratic gains. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/09/us/politics/trump-texas-redistricting.html

Heeney, E. (2017, November 8). Featured favorite: Gerrymandering story map. Digital Scholarship Lab @MarquetteRaynor. https://medium.com/dslab/friday-favorite-gerrymandering-story-map-1e86bd1b3c43

Kenny, C. T., McCartan, C., Simko, T., Kuriwaki, S., & Imai, K. (2023). Widespread partisan gerrymandering mostly cancels nationally, but reduces electoral competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(25), e2217322120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

Koski, S. (n.d.). City of Richmond on Wednesday, the 4th day of March, 2026.

Li, M. (2025, August 9). Gerrymandering Explained. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

Minock, N. (2026, February 9). Virginia governor approves amendment to allow Dems to gerrymander congressional districts. WJLA. https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-governor-approves-amendment-to-allow-dems-to-gerrymander-congressional-districts

Nuechterlein, K. (2026, February 4). Former Virginia AG Miyares joins fight against redistricting, says “common sense will prevail.” https://www.29news.com. https://www.29news.com/2026/02/04/former-virginia-ag-miyares-joins-fight-against-redistricting-says-common-sense-will-prevail/

RealClearPolitics. (2026a, March 16). Democratic Party Favorability. RealClearPolling. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/democratic-party

RealClearPolitics. (2026b, March 16). Republican Party Favorability. RealClearPolling. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/republican-party

RealClearPolitics. (2026c, March 16). Trump: Favorable/unfavorable. RealClearPolling. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump

Reston, M. (2025, November 4). How Newsom drove Prop 50 to victory — and hit back at Trump. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/04/newsom-redistricting-california-prop-50-trump/

Schneider, G. (2026, March 13). A Voter’s Guide to the Redistricting Referendum in Virginia. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2026/03/13/virginia-redistricting-referendum-voter-guide/

Schneider, G. (2026, March 16). As States Scrap for Seats, Virginia Could Tip the Scales. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/16/virginia-trump-redistricting-referendum-spanberger/

Silver, N., & McKown-Dawson, E. (2026, March 28). Who’s ahead on the generic congressional ballot? Silver Bulletin.

The New York Times Editorial Board. (2025, October 31). In Trump’s America, are we losing our democracy? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/31/opinion/trump-autocracy-democracy-report.html

Troiano, N. (2021, March 30). Party primaries must go. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/party-primaries-must-go/618428/

Tucker, N. (2024, July 18). Gerrymandering: The Origin Story. Library of Congress Blogs. https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2024/07/gerrymandering-the-origin-story/

Virginia Department of Elections. (2026). Proposed amendment for April 2026 special election. https://www.elections.virginia.gov/election-law/proposed-amendment-for-april-2026-special-election/

Virginia Department of Elections. (2026). Proposed Amendment for April 2026 Special Election. https://www.elections.virginia.gov/election-law/proposed-amendment-for-april-2026-special-election/

When We All Vote. (2026)

https://whenweallvote.org/

Wikimedia Foundation. (2026, March 14). 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia

Wong, S., Kapur, S., & Nobles, R. (2025, February 4). Republicans take a back seat as Trump steamrolls Congress with flurry of unilateral moves. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-back-seat-trump-steamroll-congress-unilateral-moves-rcna190465

• Beyond Bias is a student run newsletter whose goal is to provide policy students at the University of Virginia with differing perspectives on current political topics.

• For a quick skim, read the bolded sections as they highlight key points in each piece.

• When reading the following perspectives, keep an open mind to new opinions and information as you arrive to your own conclusion about the topic.

  ---

A Moderate Overview:

The War Powers Resolution and Overview of the Iranian Conflict

Every time the president sends Armed Forces abroad, an old constitutional tension resurfaces—one the Founders built into the system by design. Article I grants Congress the sole authority to declare war, whereas Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. These two provisions have never fully resolved themselves, and when American troops are in hostile situations, the question of who holds the power to send them there becomes unavoidable.

The U.S. is confronting this question today. On February 28, 2026, Israel and the United States launched joint airstrikes on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several Iranian officials and citizens, with the stated goal of regime change. Iran swiftly retaliated, and current figures estimate the death toll reaches roughly 1,444 in Iran, at least 15 in Israel, 13 U.S. soldiers, and 20 killed across Gulf States (AJLabs, 2026). Congress was not consulted before the first strike was ordered.

The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 was passed to address moments like this. Following heavy U.S. military involvement in Korea and Vietnam (without formal declarations of war), the constitutional lines between presidential and congressional wartime authority were blurred. Frustrations peaked when President Nixon ordered bomb strikes in Cambodia without congressional knowledge, providing the impetus for the passage of the WPR. Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him.

Presidents have generally resisted or ignored the Act, typically pursuing actions “consistent with” rather than “pursuant to” its provisions. Reporting “consistent with” the Act allows a president to comply with the WPR’s form while disregarding its legal authority. Courts have generally sidestepped legal challenges to the president’s ability to initiate the use of force without congressional authority, leaving the constitutional limits on war powers an unsettled legal question. Administrations across both parties have followed this precedent, from Reagan’s deployment to Grenada to Obama’s intervention in Libya, leaving the Act’s enforcement to political will rather than legal obligation (Hooker, 1991; Waxman, 2011).

As a result, each new military action exposes the same unresolved tension: Congress possesses formal authority to check presidential war-making but struggles to do so in practice. Last week, the House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution to halt Trump’s attacks in Iran in a 212-219 vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued Trump’s decision was “consistent with what previous administrations have done” and that the President was “perfectly within his rights” (Lindsay, 2026). Even if the resolution had passed both chambers, Trump likely would have vetoed it, and the Democratic does not hold the two-thirds majority necessary to override.

As the 60-day clock continues to tick on Operation Epic Fury, a question first posed by the Framers remains unresolved: How do we strike the right balance between the executive’s need to act swiftly and Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing war?

written by Catherine Housson

The Right’s Perspective: The War Powers Red Herring

Unsurprisingly, the conflict in Iran has revived the decades-long debate over presidential war powers—one that resurfaces whenever the U.S. confronts real security threats. In today’s strategic environment, defined by terrorism, proxy warfare, and nuclear proliferation, threats evolve faster than our divided Congress can realistically deliberate and address.

War Powers in Practice

The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) remains an open question. Fundamentally, Article II gives the president operational control of the military, while Congress already holds powerful checks through its authority to fund and regulate the armed forces and declare war. The WPR is therefore less a constitutional safeguard than a statutory attempt to limit executive authority beyond the Constitution’s clear mandate—and in spite of the realities of modern conflict.

War powers disputes are not unique to any one administration or conflict (no, not even to the Trump Administration). Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, yet presidents of both parties have since launched major military operations—from Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans to Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama’s Libyan air campaign resulting in regime change, Trump’s strikes in Syria and Iraq, and Biden’s operations against Iran-backed militias in Yemen (Bomboy, 2026). Each administration cites the actions of its predecessors, and, absent congressional or judicial intervention, unilateral military action remains standard practice in Washington.

The Case Against Iran (Do I Even Need to Make One?)

Historically, scholars frame presidential war powers using a two-part test: whether a sufficient “national interest” justifies the use of force, and whether the anticipated “nature, scope, and duration” of the action amounts to “war in the constitutional sense” (Bridgeman, 2020). By the first measure, the present threat posed by Iran is clear. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has openly defined itself in hostile opposition to the U.S.—as seen in decades of proxy warfare across the Middle East (Joachim, 2026). The regime has a bloody history of murdering American service members and citizens dating back to 1983 and is widely regarded as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism (Joachim, 2026).

The president’s foremost duty is to defend America. The Iranian regime is not just a distant geopolitical rival but a persistent security threat. U.S. action in Iran is therefore not pointless meddling but a rational, long-overdue response: “This is an action by the president to address a real threat,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserts (Joachim, 2026). Secretary of War Pete Hegseth goes further, describing the operation as finally drawing a line after “47 years of Iranian belligerence” (Joachim, 2026).

How Much Is Too Much?

The harder question lies in the second part of the test: whether the conflict amounts to war in the constitutional sense (Bridgeman, 2020). Critics argue that it does. Yale law professor Oona Hathaway warns that a conflict spreading across multiple Middle Eastern countries risks becoming the kind of war the Constitution intended Congress to authorize (Gringlas, 2026). Others, including Senator Tim Kaine, argue that the absence of a “clearly imminent threat” makes military escalation unwarranted. Yet even Kaine admits that “Iran is a bad actor, oppressing its own citizens and fomenting violence outside its borders, including attacks against U.S. troops” (Gringlas, 2026).

Concerns about executive overreach are legitimate, but they must be weighed against the realities of national security. At what point does the Iranian threat become “imminent”? Is it not already? Proactively confronting Iran’s aggression is far wiser than waiting until the consequences—more American casualties or a nuclear-capable Iran—are already irreversible.

The war powers debate is real. In theory, Congress should play a larger role in authorizing military force. In practice, modern threats move faster than legislatures can adequately respond. This reality requires executive flexibility. The challenge is not unduly constraining presidential war powers but ensuring they are exercised responsibly while preserving the executive’s ability to protect American lives.

Written by Ruby Garrison

The Left’s Perspective: Another War, Another Excuse

The United States’ invasion of Iran has puzzled much of the American public and experts alike. President Trump said the attacks were to “prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security threats” (PBS 2026). The narrative has been twofold: Iran is a threat to Americans’ physical safety and values of democracy. Yet, this justification overlooks history that raises serious questions about both the motives behind U.S. intervention and the president’s authority to launch it without meaningful congressional oversight.

A Pattern Of Intervention

In 1953, the United States and Britain orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossaddegh. They replaced the Prime Minister with the Shah, who established an authoritarian regime over the country. Historians widely agree that this intervention reshaped Iran’s political trajectory and helped produce the deep mistrust that continues to define U.S.–Iran conflict today. So why did we get involved then, and why are we getting involved now?

Scholars generally agree that the United States had political and economic motivations for their involvement in 1953, primarily oil. Prime Minister Mossaddegh and the Iranian Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, threatening Britain’s control over the supply. Consequently, the U.S. and Britain assisted in the coup to keep control of Iran’s crude oil. Ultimately, this event aligns with what many leftist scholars identify as a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy: military or political interventions framed as protecting democracy and national security, while underlying economic and strategic interests remain at play (Polychroniou, 2017; Zinn, 2011).

Is This Allowed?

The War Powers Resolution requires congressional authorization for sustained military action unless responding to a national emergency (Weed, 2025). By this standard, the attacks on Iran are hard to justify. This concern is not unique to the left. Even Joe Kent, formerly the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in opposition to the attacks on Tuesday, March 17. He wrote on X “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby” (Kent, 2026.) Is it possible that once again, the United States is using violence to achieve economic and political goals beyond national security?

When the executive branch can initiate military action without meaningful congressional authorization, Americans are asked to trust that the motivations behind that intervention are justified. Yet, history suggests that these decisions are often shaped by strategic calculations that are not immediately visible to the public. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war precisely because decisions about war carry enormous human and political consequences and should not rest solely in the hands of one individual.

Congressional oversight does not merely serve as a procedural hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. The War Powers Resolution was designed to ensure that military action reflects the will of the American people through their elected representatives (Waxman, 2017). When presidents bypass that process, the result is a foreign policy that can drift away from democratic accountability.

The Bottom Line

If the United States is serious about promoting democracy abroad, it must first uphold democratic decision-making at home. History shows that interventions justified in the name of freedom can have consequences that last generations. That reality makes congressional oversight of war powers not only constitutional, but essential. When presidents frame violence as a justified action to protect Americans, we lose sight of who is really being harmed in the process. Going forward, the most important question is not only who gets to make the decision, but what they gain from making it.

written by Allison Griffin

Have any lingering questions? Want to add a unique perspective? Have a request for a future topic? Leave a comment below!

Leave a comment

Edited by: Bryce Davis and Mandolyn Hanson

Citations

AJLabs. (2026, March). US-Israel attacks on Iran: Death toll and injuries live tracker. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/1/us-israel-attacks-on-iran-death-toll-and-injuries-live-tracker

Bridgeman, T. (2020, January). War Powers Resolution Reporting: Presidential practice and the use of Armed Forces abroad, 1973-2019. Reiss Center on Law and Security. https://warpowers.lawandsecurity.org/wpr-reporting-1973-2019.pdf

Does the War Powers Resolution debate take on a new context in the Iran conflict? (2026, March 3). National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-war-powers-resolution-debate-take-on-a-new-context-in-the-iran-conflict

Gasiorowski, M. J. (1987). The 1953 Coup D’etat in Iran. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 19(3), 261–286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/163655

Gringlas, S. (2026, March 10). Why Congress rarely pushes back when presidents deploy military force. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/10/nx-s1-5734333/congress-war-powers-explained

Hooker, R. D. (1991). PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONMAKING AND USE OF FORCE: CASE STUDY GRENADA. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1594

Joachim, S. (2026, March 3). Inside Iran’s long history of attacks on US: A timeline. The Hill. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5765178-inside-irans-long-history-of-attacks-on-us-a-timeline/

Kent, Joe. (2026, March 17). @joekent16jan19. X.com.

Lindsay, J. M. (2026, March 6). Congress Declines to Demand a Say in the Iran War. Cfr.org; Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/congress-declines-to-demand-a-say-in-the-iran-war

Matson, R.J. (2026, January 05). Trump Captures Congressional War Powers [Political Carton]. Cagle Cartoons. https://caglecartoons.com/cartoon/303381

Nerozzi, T. (2026, March 1). Monitoring the situation: White House releases photos of Trump, Rubio and team being briefed on Iran operation. Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/4475923/pictured-monitoring-situation-photos-trump-briefed-iran-operation/

Polychroniou, C. J. (2017, January 19). Noam Chomsky on the long history of us meddling in foreign elections. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-on-the-long-history-of-us-meddling-in-foreign-elections/

Read Trump’s full statement on Iran attacks. (2026, February 28). PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack

War Powers Resolution. The Avalon Project. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

Waxman, M. C. (2011, March 28). The Debate Over U.S. Libya Intervention. Cfr.org; Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/debate-over-us-libya-intervention

Waxman, Matthew C. The Power to Wage War Successfully, 117 Colum. L. Rev. 613 (2017). https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/223

Weed, Matthew C. Understanding the War Powers Resolution. (2025, December 17). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13134

Zinn, H. (2011). A People’s History of the United States (Reiss). HarperCollins.

Subscribe now