Executive agreements refer to agreements between the President of the United States and a foreign government or international organization. These agreements can cover a wide range of issues, including trade, security, and human rights. While executive agreements can be a useful tool for the President to conduct foreign policy, there are concerns about their potential to bypass the Constitution`s treaty-making process.

There are a few ways that executive agreements can be limited:

1. Judicial review: Courts can play a role in limiting executive agreements by interpreting their constitutionality. In particular, the Supreme Court has the power to invalidate executive agreements that conflict with the Constitution or statutory law.

2. Congressional action: Congress can limit executive agreements by passing legislation that restricts the President`s authority to enter into these agreements. For example, Congress could require that all executive agreements be submitted to the Senate for approval, just like treaties.

3. Diplomatic pressure: Other countries can also play a role in limiting executive agreements. If a foreign government or international organization refuses to enter into an executive agreement without the involvement of the Senate, the President may be forced to seek approval through the treaty-making process.

4. Public scrutiny: Finally, public pressure can also limit executive agreements. By raising awareness about the potential pitfalls of these agreements, citizens can encourage their elected representatives to take action to limit the President`s use of executive agreements.

Overall, there are a few different strategies that can be used to limit executive agreements. By engaging in judicial review, congressional action, diplomatic pressure, and public scrutiny, it is possible to ensure that these agreements do not undermine the Constitution`s system of checks and balances.