Why It Matters
The State Department's handling of international agreements is facing legal and legislative pressure as Congress seeks greater transparency into executive branch commitments abroad. A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published on the Case-Zablocki Act, the 1972 law governing disclosure of international agreements, reveals tensions between presidential authority and congressional oversight that are playing out in real time. A federal judge recently allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the State Department for allegedly failing to publish agreement texts and legal justifications on schedule, while Members of Congress are increasingly invoking the law to demand information about diplomatic arrangements announced without prior notice.
The 2022 amendments to the law, which took effect in October 2023, dramatically expanded what must be disclosed. The State Department now must submit monthly reports to Congress on all international agreements and "qualifying non-binding instruments," or QNIs, signed or finalized that month, rather than waiting for them to enter into force. The law also requires detailed explanations of the legal authority underpinning each commitment. Yet implementation has proven uneven, and the State Department's reliance on Article II of the Constitution alone to justify some agreements has raised questions about the breadth of presidential power in foreign affairs.
The Big Picture
The original Case-Zablocki Act required the State Department to report all international agreements to Congress within 60 days of entry into force. The 2022 amendments, enacted as part of the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, fundamentally rewired that framework. Now the Secretary of State must provide monthly lists and texts of agreements and QNIs signed, concluded, or finalized during the prior month, and publish those texts on a public website within 120 days.
The law introduced QNIs as a new category subject to reporting. These are non-binding diplomatic instruments that could reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on U.S. foreign policy. The definition proved immediately consequential: in April 2025, the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee invoked it to demand arrangements regarding the detention of individuals removed to El Salvador, which the State Department subsequently disclosed as part of its May 2025 report.
The department has identified three potential sources of authority for executive agreements: previously ratified Senate treaties, statutes, and Article II of the Constitution alone. Statutory authority appears most frequently in the department's published reports through July. Yet for qualifying non-binding instruments specifically, the State Department has relied exclusively on Article II in all published legal authority statements to date, citing the President's power to represent the nation in foreign affairs and determine the form and manner of diplomatic engagement.
This assertion of Article II authority rests on language that does not appear in the Constitution itself. Article II explicitly grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief but contains no express reference to a power to conduct foreign relations or to make executive agreements. The Supreme Court has upheld presidential authority to conclude executive agreements in certain contexts and has referenced the power to conduct foreign relations in those decisions, but courts have not elaborated on the scope of that authority in detail. In one case, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to address the executive branch's claim of exclusive authority over diplomatic relations.
The Bottom Line
The legal and political framework governing executive agreements remains unsettled even after the 2022 amendments. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiff had standing based on an informational injury theory under the Case Act. The Government Accountability Office issued seven recommendations in June to improve the timeliness and completeness of Case Act reporting and the searchability of published materials. Simultaneously, Congress is using the law's enforcement mechanisms to demand transparency about specific arrangements.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article