Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress or may do so on the basis of its foreign relations management authority. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same force as treaties. As executive agreements are made on the authority of the president-in-office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Article on Executive Agreement In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that if the president has an independent power to enter into an executive agreement, the president can denounce the agreement independently without the approval of Congress or the Senate.
187 The same principle would apply to political commitments: to the extent that the President has the authority to make non-binding commitments without the approval of the Senate or Congress, the President may also unilaterally withdraw from those commitments.188 The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to be empowered to make non-binding commitments without the agreement of the Senate or Congress. to inform the Senate within 60 days. one of the executive agreements reached. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation.  In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level if they are negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous act of Congress. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.
 Although the Supreme Court did not address the issue directly, many courts and commentators agree that the provisions of international agreements that would require the United States to exercise powers that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress cannot be considered self-regenerating and that implementing laws are necessary to produce such provisions indissignedly.117 The courts were subject to this provision because Congress controls the power of money. Because Congress controls the power of the wallet. 118 Other leading jurisdictions have proposed that provisions of the contract purporting to create criminal liability119 or increase revenue120 should not be considered self-processing, since these powers are the exclusive prerogative of Congress. Some scholars of international law have sometimes criticized the fact that the Senate has certain reservations, and 36 And scientists debate whether some or all of the provisions of a treaty are not carried out on their own (i.e., require that enforcement laws be enforceable through the courts) be constitutional.37 Until the adoption of laws of application, some or all of the provisions of a treaty are not themselves applicable.37 Which are subject to an unseerede-determined determination