America's Foreign Policy Practice Exam 2025 – Comprehensive Test Prep

Executive agreements have significantly shaped the landscape of U.S. foreign policy, particularly by reducing the need for Congressional approval. Unlike treaties, which require a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be ratified, executive agreements can be enacted by the President without such stringent requirements. This allows the executive branch to enter into agreements with foreign nations rapidly and with greater flexibility.

This capacity to bypass Congress in forming international agreements fosters a different dynamic in foreign policy-making. While Congress is still fundamentally involved in overseeing foreign policy through its legislative powers, the prevalence of executive agreements diminishes its control over international relations, thus enabling the President to conduct foreign affairs with a degree of autonomy.

The other options do not accurately capture the essence of how executive agreements affect the Congressional role. They do not result in increased Congressional oversight, as oversight is lessened when the executive can act independently. Although executive agreements are often used more liberally than treaties, claiming they are less commonly used than treaties does not reflect their practical application. Lastly, the requirement for two-thirds Senate approval applies solely to treaties, making that option incorrect.