The health of our democracy and ultimately its existence depend on the continued viability of the system of separation of powers and checks and balances ingrained in our Constitution. President Trump’s second term provides a stress test for this system, highlighting its weaknesses. The most critical of these is the decline of Congress as an effective, coequal branch of government. If our democracy is to endure, Congress must reverse its downward spiral and reclaim its central role under the Constitution.
Congress has been in decline for some time
It’s no accident that Congress, the branch of the federal government closest to the people, is established by the first article of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers No. 51 observed: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Over time, however, Congress has in effect demoted itself from arguably the preeminent among three coequal branches to the least significant.
For decades, Congress has gradually ceded its policymaking functions to the president and the executive branch bureaucracy; it now mainly reacts to their policy agendas. Congress struggles to carry out its most basic responsibility of providing appropriations to keep the government running. It has also largely abandoned meaningful oversight of the executive branch; what passes for oversight today is mostly partisan posturing.
Congress’ neglect of its constitutional obligations distorts the roles of the other two branches as well. The executive branch, originally designed to carry out congressional policies, now exercises far more policymaking authority than the framers intended, particularly on domestic matters. The federal judiciary, described by Alexander Hamilton as the “weakest” and “least dangerous” branch, has been forced to assume a much larger role than originally envisioned in order to fill gaps left by Congress.
Trump exposes and exploits Congress’ weaknesses as never before
Congress’ shortcomings have been long in the making but less obvious before Trump. His predecessors often pushed the limits of their powers and sometimes exceeded them, but they generally respected democratic and legal norms. Even Trump was fairly constrained in his first term. However, his authoritarian tendencies have now fully emerged. He has stocked his second term administration with unquestioning loyalists and enablers who share his indifference or even hostility to democratic values and the rule of law. Many such dubious appointees were confirmed by a compliant Senate. The Justice Department is now run by ethically challenged lawyers who disregard their obligations to deal with the courts in candor and good faith.
Trump takes full advantage of the broad, ambiguous authorities past Congresses delegated to the president, and then some. See, for example:
-
- his highly dubious invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to support extremely aggressive deportation practices;
- his extensive and erratic use of tariffs, an authority the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress;
- ordering the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, which at the least tested the limits of presidential war powers; and
- his clearly unconstitutional attempt to redefine birthright citizenship and refusal to implement the ban on TikTok imposed by statute and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, Trump has dismantled federal programs, fired federal employees, and refused to spend congressionally enacted appropriations in ways that raise a host of legal issues. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ “watchdog” agency, is investigating many actions involving the withholding of appropriated funds, as the law requires it to do, and has already determined that three such actions violated the Impoundment Control Act. Through all of this, Congress sits on the sidelines, leaving the federal judiciary as the only guardrail against executive branch excesses. (Remarkably, the House Appropriations Committee actually sought to impede GAO’s impoundment investigations.)[1]The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected this effort. The outcome remains to be determined.
Congress’ shortcomings as a legislative body were on full display during passage of Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful bill.” This massive, highly consequential legislation is widely unpopular. It will increase the already out of control federal debt by trillions of dollars. The nonpartisan and usually restrained Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget described it as “a massive fiscal capitulation” by Congress and “the single most expensive, dishonest, and reckless budget reconciliation bill ever.”
The bill never received serious substantive consideration in Congress. Instead, congressional participation was superficial and wholly reactive. There was no effort at bipartisanship and evidently little if any significant policy debate even within the Republican majority in either chamber. The overriding focus was on garnering by any means enough Republican votes to pass what Trump wanted. Even the timing reflected Congress’ subservient role. Both chambers conducted marathon sessions and urgent deal-making to meet Trump’s artificial July 4 deadline for passage. It was bizarre to see Republicans gleefully celebrating passage of a bill that many probably hated.
In sum, Congress has relegated itself to virtual irrelevance as a coequal branch of government. The current Republican majorities have gone even further, reducing it to a de facto extension of the Trump administration.
Congressional decline reflects the sad state of our political system
The decline of Congress is exacerbated by the greatly increased polarization of our politics. Due to gerrymandering and demographic factors, few congressional races today remain competitive. Previewing the 2026 midterm elections, only 18 of 435 House races are rated as tossups and only three of 35 Senate races. One party or the other is favored (usually heavily) in all the rest. The result is a two-party duopoly with the main competition occurring in primary elections where each party’s base dominates. The bases of both parties have become progressively more influential, more extreme, and more polarized.
In this political environment, congressional candidates face their greatest challenge in primary rather than general elections, including incumbents who live in fear of being “primaried.” As a result, they are heavily incentivized to prioritize ideological purity and party loyalty above all else. Few members of Congress today seem motivated by serving the public interest or even the interests of their own constituents beyond their party’s base voters. Even fewer seem to care about Congress as an institution. The most prominent members now are those who perform for their bases and media allies.
Bipartisan efforts at problem-solving have virtually disappeared; party line votes predominate. The result is highly partisan legislation such as the “big, beautiful bill” when one party holds a “trifecta,” i.e., control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, and gridlock when political power is divided.
Congress and the political parties are unrepresentative of the American people
Polarization in Congress and in our political party duopoly might be understandable if the American public fell largely into two ideologically extreme and hostile camps. But this is not the case. Most Americans are more pragmatic than ideological and prefer constructive engagement and compromise. Indeed, majorities of Americans agree on many issues that divide the political extremes.
With Congress and the two major parties so unrepresentative, it’s no wonder that the public holds all of them in low esteem. Public approval of Congress stands at an abysmal 23 percent. Both political parties are also viewed unfavorably. Far more Americans identify as independent than with either major party.
Can Congress’ decline be reversed?
Yes, if enough Americans are willing to overcome their apathy or cynicism and engage in politics. At a minimum, they must vote. Turnout in the primaries where most elections are now decided is extremely low. A meager one-fifth of the eligible electorate voted in the 2022 midterm elections. Only about two-thirds of potentially eligible voters participated in the 2024 presidential election, meaning close to 90 million did not.
A major influx of ideologically moderate, pragmatic voters supporting like-minded candidates particularly in primary elections could do much to change the political landscape. This might come through a third-party movement or by working within the existing two-party structure. Either approach would require a critical mass of new voters and at least one entity to serve as a catalyst and organizer.
Third parties have a poor track record. Election rules are stacked against them, with many states limiting open primaries. The two parties also have a huge advantage in terms of financial resources. The No Labels organization was unable even to field a presidential candidate in the 2024 election despite the unpopularity of the major party choices. On the other hand, dissatisfaction with the two major parties has caused public support for a third party to increase greatly over recent years.
Working with the two parties might be a more practical way to force them back closer to the center. After all, Donald Trump was able to take over the Republican Party from the outside. While Trump firmly controls the Republican base, his power likely derives as much from fear as devotion. Only about half of Republican voters identify as MAGA types. Clearly, the Democratic party, widely perceived even by its own adherents as “out of touch, woke, and weak,” is currently searching for an identity and might be a likely target now.
There are existing entities that could spearhead either approach. No Labels still exists as a nonpartisan organization despite its failure to come up with a presidential ticket in 2024. Another possibility is Third Way, a Democratic leaning but centrist outfit.
Any such effort should start modestly, targeting promising House and Senate races at the grass roots. Both the House and Senate are closely divided overall with very narrow working majorities. Thus, a relatively small group of incoming members who are willing to put constructive engagement above party loyalty and work across the aisle could wield outsized influence and even hold the balance of power in each chamber. (Recall the pivotal role that centrist Senators Manchin and Sinema recently played.) They might link up with current members who claim to share these values, such as the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House.
Will anything like this actually happen?
One can only hope. Benjamin Franklin famously observed that the framers of the Constitution gave Americans “a republic, if you can keep it.” The citizens of a republic get the government they deserve and are ultimately responsible for the quality of the office holders they elect. Thus, Congress’ future and the fate of our democracy are firmly in the hands of the citizenry.