Executive agreements are international agreements the president makes with foreign leaders without Senate approval. In AP Gov, they're classified as an informal foreign policy power (unlike treaties, which need a two-thirds Senate vote) and serve as key evidence of expanding presidential power in Unit 2.
An executive agreement is a deal the president makes directly with a foreign government. It works a lot like a treaty in practice, but with one huge difference. A treaty requires a two-thirds Senate vote to take effect. An executive agreement requires zero votes from anyone.
That's why the CED labels treaties a formal foreign policy power (it's right there in Article II) and executive agreements an informal power. Presidents lean on them because they're fast and don't risk a Senate rejection. The trade-off is durability. Because an executive agreement rests only on the president's authority, the next president can undo it just as easily. A treaty, once ratified, is the law of the land. Think of it this way: a treaty is a contract co-signed by the Senate, while an executive agreement is a handshake deal that lasts only as long as the person who shook hands wants it to.
Executive agreements live in Unit 2: Interactions Among Branches of Government, and they touch four different topics, which tells you how central they are. Under 2.4.A, the CED explicitly lists executive agreements as an informal foreign policy power alongside formal powers like commander-in-chief and treaties, so knowing the formal/informal split here is non-negotiable. Under 2.6.A, the rise of executive agreements is classic evidence for how presidents have interpreted and expanded their powers over time, the kind of expansion Federalist No. 70 (protecting the country 'against foreign attacks') gets used to justify. And under 2.5.A and 2.3.A, executive agreements show the flip side: when the Senate is a roadblock (think partisanship, polarization, and gridlock), presidents route around it, which weakens a constitutional check. If an exam question asks how a president pursues a policy agenda when Congress won't cooperate, executive agreements are one of your go-to answers.
Keep studying AP Gov Unit 2
Treaty (Unit 2)
The treaty is the formal, Article II version of the same move. The Senate's rejection of Wilson's Treaty of Versailles is the classic example of why presidents started preferring executive agreements: a treaty can die in the Senate, but an executive agreement can't.
Expansion of Presidential Power (Unit 2)
Executive agreements are Exhibit A in the Topic 2.6 story. Each time a president substitutes an agreement for a treaty, the office accumulates power the Constitution never explicitly handed it, which fuels the ongoing debate between limited and expansive views of the presidency.
Checks and Balances (Units 1-2)
The two-thirds Senate vote on treaties is one of the Constitution's built-in checks on the executive. Executive agreements effectively sidestep that check, which is why critics see them as a checks-and-balances problem, not just a convenience.
Congressional Behavior and Gridlock (Unit 2)
Polarization and partisan voting in the Senate make treaty ratification harder to achieve. That gridlock creates the incentive: the more dysfunctional Congress gets, the more attractive unilateral tools like executive agreements become.
On multiple choice, the most common setup asks you to classify executive agreements as an informal power or to identify what their growing use 'represents' (answer: the expansion of presidential power and the weakening of a Senate check). Questions also pair them with the Senate's rejection of the Treaty of Versailles to test whether you understand why presidents avoid the treaty route. On FRQs, executive agreements are a strong piece of evidence for an argument essay or concept application question about presidential power, checks and balances, or how a president advances a policy agenda despite congressional resistance. The move the exam rewards is precision: name the power, label it informal, and explain the consequence for the Senate's constitutional role. Don't just say 'the president makes agreements.'
Both are deals with foreign nations, but a treaty is a formal Article II power requiring a two-thirds Senate vote, while an executive agreement is an informal power requiring no Senate approval at all. Treaties are harder to make but harder to undo; executive agreements are quick to make but a future president can scrap them unilaterally. If the question mentions Senate ratification, it's a treaty. If it mentions bypassing the Senate, it's an executive agreement.
An executive agreement is an international agreement the president makes without Senate approval, while a treaty requires a two-thirds Senate vote.
The CED classifies executive agreements as an informal presidential power and treaties as a formal one, and the exam expects you to keep that distinction straight.
Presidents use executive agreements to act quickly in foreign policy and to avoid the risk of Senate rejection, like what happened to Wilson's Treaty of Versailles.
The growing use of executive agreements is core evidence for the expansion of presidential power (Topic 2.6) and the erosion of a constitutional check on the executive.
Executive agreements are easier to make but also easier to undo, since the next president can reverse them without any congressional action.
Congressional gridlock and polarization make executive agreements more attractive, because a divided Senate makes treaty ratification a long shot.
Executive agreements are international agreements the president makes with foreign governments without Senate approval. The AP Gov CED lists them as an informal foreign policy power in Topic 2.4, alongside formal powers like commander-in-chief and treaty-making.
No. That's the whole point. Treaties need a two-thirds Senate vote to be ratified, but executive agreements take effect on the president's authority alone, which is exactly why presidents often prefer them.
A treaty is a formal constitutional power requiring two-thirds Senate ratification, while an executive agreement is an informal power that skips the Senate entirely. Treaties are more durable; executive agreements can be reversed by the next president.
No, the Constitution never mentions them, which is why they count as an informal power. Article II only describes the formal treaty process. Executive agreements developed through presidential practice, making them a textbook example of expanding presidential power under Topic 2.6.
Speed and certainty. A treaty can be rejected by the Senate, as Wilson's Treaty of Versailles famously was, while an executive agreement can't be blocked. In a polarized, gridlocked Senate, getting 67 votes for a treaty is often unrealistic, so presidents route around it.
Connect this key term to the AP exam workflow: review the course, practice questions, and check related study tools.
Review units, study guides, and course resources.
Check this vocabulary in multiple-choice context.
Apply key concepts in written AP responses.
Estimate the exam score you are working toward.
Review the highest-yield facts before practice.
Put the full course together before test day.