Every White House has its stock phrases. Some administrations favored “ongoing review.” Others liked “we’ll circle back.” The current one seems particularly fond of the all-purpose “we’re not taking options off the table,” which is bureaucratic shorthand for please stop asking detailed questions. Unfortunately, that line tends to cause problems when the topic is, say, compulsory military service.
Which brings us to the weekend exchange between White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Maria Bartiromo on Fox News. Bartiromo asked about the possibility of ground troops as the U.S. military campaign against Iran continues. But she also slipped in a question that would make any communications professional wince: whether worried mothers should brace for a draft.
Here’s the exchange that launched a thousand anxious social media posts:
Bartiromo: “I want to get your take about this idea of troops on the ground. Mothers out there are worried that we’re going to have a draft, that they’re going to see their sons and daughters get involved in this. What do you want to say about the president’s plans for troops on the ground?”
Leavitt: “As we know, it’s been largely an air campaign up until now. Has been, and it will continue to be. And President Trump wisely does not remove options off of the table. I know a lot of politicians like to do that quickly, but the president as commander in chief wants to continue to assess the success of this military operation. It’s not part of the current plan right now, but the president, again, wisely keeps his options on table.”
And just like that, the internet heard the words “draft,” “Trump,” and “options on the table,” combined them into a neat little panic bundle, and ran with it.
To be clear: the odds of the administration attempting to bring back the draft are roughly equivalent to the odds of Congress spontaneously agreeing on anything controversial in an election year. In other words, microscopic.
But the problem with the “options on the table” routine is that it’s a communications strategy that seems engineered to produce alarming headlines. A response along the lines of “that has not been discussed” or “we’re not looking at that option” would have shut the entire conversation down immediately. Instead, the statement practically guaranteed a wave of headlines along the lines of Trump won’t rule out reinstating the draft, followed by the inevitable resurrection of jokes about Donald Trump and his infamous bone spurs.
In fairness to Leavitt, Bartiromo’s question did two things at once. The main topic was whether the aerial campaign against Iran might expand to include U.S. ground forces. The draft, meanwhile, was injected as a kind of rhetorical anxiety amplifier: the thing that would most quickly capture the attention of viewers who otherwise might tune out another discussion of air strikes and strategy.
Leavitt likely meant to emphasize that the war remains an air campaign. But she also appeared to feel compelled to add the familiar Trump-administration caveat that the president never says “never.” If there is a philosophical constant to Trump-era messaging, it’s the belief that the president should never publicly rule out exercising any power—even hypothetical ones.
There’s just one small complication with applying that philosophy to the draft: the president does not actually have the power to reinstate it on his own.
The modern U.S. draft effectively ended in 1973 as American involvement in the Vietnam War wound down. What Congress did afterward was something that sounds complicated but is actually pretty simple: it left the registration system in place while allowing the authority to actually induct people into military service to expire.
That means the government still maintains the machinery of the Selective Service System. Young adults—specifically men aged 18 to 25—are still required to register. But the legal authority to begin drafting people into the armed forces is dormant unless Congress revives it.
On first glance, federal law might seem to suggest sweeping presidential authority. Section 3803(a) of Title 50 of the U.S. Code states:
“The President is authorized, from time to time, whether or not a state of war exists, to select and induct into the Armed Forces of the United States for training and service in the manner provided in this chapter (including but not limited to selection and induction by age group or age groups) such number of persons as may be required to provide and maintain the strength of the Armed Forces.”
That sounds pretty expansive—until you notice the phrase “in the manner provided in this chapter.”
That clause matters. A lot.
The “chapter” in question includes numerous provisions that only Congress can authorize and fund: troop levels, draft classification systems, deferments, exemptions, induction procedures, and all the bureaucratic infrastructure that makes a draft function. Historically, when the United States has used conscription, Congress passed temporary laws governing these mechanisms and periodically renewed them.
The last time Congress did that was in 1971, when it extended the Vietnam-era induction authority until July 1, 1973. After that date arrived, lawmakers simply let the authority lapse. No extension, no renewal, no draft.
So despite what the internet rumor mill might suggest, a president cannot simply wake up one morning, sign a memo, and start mailing draft notices.
Reinstating compulsory military service would require Congress to pass legislation restoring induction authority and funding the entire system. In the current political environment, that idea is about as likely as a bipartisan agreement on pineapple pizza.
It’s also wildly unpopular. Polls have consistently shown little appetite among Americans for bringing back conscription, especially after two decades of wars fought by a volunteer military.
All of which makes the communications misstep here a bit frustrating. The White House could easily defuse the issue by saying something simple and accurate: restoring the draft would require congressional action, and the president has not requested it.
Instead, the administration’s messaging strategy prefers maximal flexibility—even when the flexibility concerns powers the president doesn’t actually possess.
That approach may make sense in negotiations or military planning. It makes far less sense when the question is whether parents should expect their children to be drafted into a war.
In short: no, the president cannot unilaterally reinstitute the draft. Congress would have to do that, and there is essentially zero chance of it happening anytime soon.
