In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. 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.  The U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Pink (1942) found that international executive agreements, validly concluded, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. Although the two agreements are both treaties and agreements between Congress and the Executive, they are legally different instruments. For example, agreements between Congress and the executive branch cannot deal with matters outside the listed powers of Congress and the President (those powers, which were expressly granted to Congress and the President in Article I, Section 8 and Section II, Section 2, of the U.S.
Constitution), while treaties can do so. Moreover, according to the Constitution, a treaty will only be ratified if at least two-thirds of the Senate votes in favour of it. On the other hand, an executive agreement of Congress with a single simple majority becomes mandatory in both houses of Congress. Agreements between Congress and the executive branch should not be confused with executive agreements reached by the president alone. In part because the powers of Congress and the president have been widely interpreted, most of the agreements proposed as treaties could have been proposed as executive agreements of Congress. That`s why the U.S. government has often chosen to use congressional executive agreements over treaties for controversial agreements that are unlikely to get the super-majority required in the Senate. The 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the agreement by which the United States became members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 are examples of controversial proposals that are dealt with in the form of agreements between Congress and the executive branch. The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939.