🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
OAN Commentary by: Adonis Hoffman
Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Every time the U.S. launches a military strike, conducts a covert operation, withdraws troops, imposes sanctions or recognizes a foreign government, a chant arises from the rafters.
Policymakers, pundits and the press go on television to assert that the president “owes” the American people an explanation. Their emphatic tone suggests an enforceable duty and implies that the president has somehow shirked his responsibility by not disclosing what is happening. Yet our Constitution imposes no such mandate, however compelling the moral claims of the day may seem.
Americans have become accustomed to receiving a fulsome description from the president of sensitive military operations underway. We ask, “What is the objective? What is the plan? What is the end game?” as if the administration were duty-bound to disclose all of those things at once. Not only have we come to expect an explanation, but we even demand it.
Yet in reality, it is unrealistic to expect the president to fully disclose the totality of American objectives for all the world to see.
When it comes to military action, U.S. law, custom and precedent all play a key part in what, when and how American presidents convey critical messages of state to the citizenry. While candor and respect from the Oval Office should be the guiding light for any administration, Congress has the only legitimate claim to hearing first — and fully — from the executive.
Article II establishes the president as commander-in-chief and chief executive. It also requires that the president “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” So the duty to disclose by the president runs to Congress, not directly to the public.
When it comes to military movements and the deployment of troops and resources, the key governing statute is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. That law requires executive branch consultation with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. It also requires a report to Congress within 48 hours and imposes a 60- to 90-day withdrawal clock, absent congressional authorization. Again, the president’s obligation is to Congress. The law does not require a public explanation to citizens, although it is a best practice of responsible leadership.
Our national security law adds another layer of interpretation. Presidents have broad authority to classify sensitive information under executive orders governing classified material. The Supreme Court in has described the president as the “sole organ” of the nation in foreign affairs. Even as Congress asserts its authorization and appropriations jurisdiction, the executive retains an unfettered right to discern and declare what can be classified.
Thus, if a president concludes that military action should be covert and classified, it remains hidden from the American public, although not from Congress.
Our history is replete with covert operations, ranging from the 1953 CIA-involved coup in Iran, which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, to Cold War regime‑change missions, of which the U.S. attempted 72 between 1947 and 1989, including 64 covert actions. During the 1980s, Americans were shielded from knowledge of Operation Cyclone, a CIA program arming and funding Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union. Recent interventions include the 2011 Libya operation, where U.S. and NATO forces helped topple Moammar Gadhafi.
The Framers intentionally vested significant foreign policy authority in a single executive for speed and unity. At the same time, they required periodic reporting to Congress to preserve accountability.
Courts historically defer to the executive in foreign affairs. In Goldwater v. Carter, justices declined to intervene in a dispute over treaty termination. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the court recognized exclusive presidential authority over diplomatic recognition. Even so, the focus of judicial review has centered on constitutional power, not public communication, and certainly not whether the president adequately explained his reasoning to the public.
We are a government of laws, not men, but American political custom continues to influence what happens in our system. Our modern democratic tradition has created, perhaps rightfully, expectations that our commander in chief will step forward in a public address to explain the actions of government — if not while things are happening, certainly right after.
Presidents who commit forces, end wars or reshape alliances usually address the nation at some point proximate to the events. They are wont to do so not because a statute commands it, but because their own political legitimacy and sustainability in a republic depends on public understanding and consent of the governed.
History shows that pattern clearly. Abraham Lincoln defended Civil War actions in speeches and letters. Franklin Roosevelt used fireside chats to prepare American for global conflict. John F. Kennedy publicly explained the strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. George H.W. Bush addressed the nation before the 1991 Gulf War. George W. Bush spoke repeatedly after September 11 and before the Iraq War. Barack Obama explained intervention in Libya and the policy of targeted killing. Joe Biden addressed the public regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
None were legally required or compelled to deliver national addresses. Yet all understood that major foreign policy decisions in a democracy demand public justification.
Our precedents, however, are not uniform. Covert CIA operations often remain undisclosed. Drone programs have been mostly classified for years. Special operations may be acknowledged only after successful completion. Presidents frequently balance transparency against operational security — as they should.
Secrecy has a necessary and essential role in the process. It is embedded in national security structure. Disclosure can compromise intelligence sources, reveal tactic or weaken diplomatic leverage. The World War II axiom “loose lips sink ships” may appear lighthearted today, but it was quite real at the time.
By design, presidents are supposed to operate within a narrow corridor. Although they are not legally obligated to fully brief the public, their success ultimately relies upon public confidence. Explanation, even when not required by law, often becomes necessary to respect the citizenry and sustain that confidence.
In our always-on global media culture, the president is best served by remaining discreet but disclosing what is necessary for Americans to feel valued, respected and informed. That reflects not only goodwill but also good governance.
(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)
Adonis Hoffman is a lawyer, analyst, and independent counsel who served in senior roles at the FCC and in the U.S. House of Representatives
What do YOU think? Click here to jump to the comments!
Sponsored Content Below