** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!! Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav The discussion centers on America’s growing shift away from its founding principle of non-interventionism. A recently released national security strategy under the Trump administration acknowledges that while complete non-intervention is unrealistic, any U.S. military intervention should meet a high bar and be clearly justified for national security, not moral or ideological reasons. Both Danny and Dan agree that: The U.S. has become involved in too many foreign conflicts without proper justification. Military action should only occur when the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, authorize it—specifically through a constitutional declaration of war. The president should not have unilateral authority to launch wars based on vague authorizations or “righteous justification.” They argue that since World War II—accelerating sharply after 9/11—the executive branch has accumulated excessive war powers, largely because Congress has abdicated its responsibility. The 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) is cited as a blank check that allowed presidents to conduct military operations anywhere with little restraint. Historical examples of congressional pushback were rare: Barbara Lee opposed the 2001 AUMF. Ron Paul introduced a declaration of war in 2003 (which he personally opposed) to force Congress to follow proper constitutional procedure. The speakers criticize both Republicans and Democrats for only objecting to executive overreach when the other party controls the presidency. They argue that reclaiming constitutional war powers will require a public movement demanding Congress reassert its authority. The conversation ends by noting current tensions over Trump’s military decisions (such as the reported Venezuela incident) and suggests that these moments might create political momentum to restore constitutional guardrails—if people are willing to hold their own party’s president accountable.