What is a possible reason that a president might perfer to pursue and executive agreement with the leader of a foregin power instead of a treaty

Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However, he may be authorized to do so by Congress, or he may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

Most executive agreements have been made pursuant to a treaty or to an act of Congress. Sometimes, however, presidents have concluded executive agreements to achieve purposes that would not command the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II but before American entry into the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 overage destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British naval bases in the Atlantic.

Explanation:

hope this helps :)

excuse me, so what the hell is the

necessary and proper clause. the congress shall have power to all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof.