Conor here: “Where is the Senate, where is the people? The senate is missing, the people have perished.”
By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University. Originally published at The Conversation.
As Election Day approaches, many Americans are preparing to cast their ballots for crucial statewide offices, local positions, and significant ballot initiatives that could reshape the landscape of democracy in the U.S.
While Congress isn’t on this November’s ballot, it will become a pivotal issue during the 2026 midterms, allowing voters to express their preferences for representatives in Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, the current state of Congress leaves much to be desired.
As the federal government shutdown stretches past a month, the U.S. House of Representatives finds itself in an unprecedented recess of over 40 days. This marks the longest recess for the House outside of its usual summer breaks or the time leading up to elections.
It’s important to note that the shutdown does not prevent Congress from convening. In fact, it is essential for Congress to meet in order to legislate an end to the shutdown. Recently, the Senate has conducted votes on judicial nominations, passed a major defense authorization bill, and discussed a resolution regarding tariff policy.
Additionally, senators have engaged in bipartisan negotiations behind the scenes to resolve the impasse of the shutdown.
However, as SNAP benefits dwindle and health care premiums soar, the House has largely forfeited its role as “The People’s Chamber.”
Long ‘Path to Irrelevance’
In light of not conducting any votes, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has refused to swear in Democratic U.S. Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva from Arizona. Contrary to Johnson’s assurances, the ongoing shutdown does not bar the House from temporarily convening to officially welcome Grijalva as the representative for Arizona’s 7th District, which has been without representation since March.
Alongside Casey Burgat and SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, I co-authored a textbook titled “Congress Explained: Representation and Lawmaking in the First Branch,” where we emphasized Congress’s essential function as the primary lawmaking body in the federal government.
Yet throughout the ongoing shutdown, Congress—especially the House—has shown reluctance to assert itself as an equal branch of government. In relinquishing many of its constitutional powers, Congress has allowed the executive branch to dominate policymaking. As a Congress expert deeply passionate about the institution and its constitutional duties, I have found this abdication disheartening.
The path to Congress’s diminishing relevance didn’t initiate during the recent shutdown or even in January 2025. Instead, it has been a gradual decline spanning decades, fostering a political culture that relegates Congress—from its rightful place as the first branch of government—to second-class status.
The Constitution Puts Congress First
The framers of the Constitution in the 18th century viewed Congress as the bedrock of republican governance, purposefully placing it first in Article 1 to emphasize its significance. Congress was entrusted with the crucial responsibilities of lawmaking and budgeting, crafted to limit executive power and avert the kinds of abuses associated with monarchy.
Contrastingly, the framers were wary of a weak legislature combined with an imperial executive. By placing legislative authority in Congress, power would be decentralized, supported by a diverse set of elected representatives guarding their local interests.
However, the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency turned the founders’ original vision upside down, leaving the “first branch” marginalized.
Like most recent presidents, Trump assumed office with control over the presidency, House, and Senate. Despite this governing trifecta, Republican majorities in Congress largely fell by the wayside concerning Trump’s agenda.
Instead, Congress has often relied on Trump and the executive branch to instigate changes to federal policy and, in many instances, to reshuffle the federal government entirely.
Trump has issued over 210 executive orders, at a pace unmatched since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Notably, the Republican-led Congress has shown little interest in contesting any of these actions. Trump has also ardently reorganized, defunded, or eliminated entire agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
These actions have occurred despite Congress’s clear constitutional authority over the executive branch’s budget. During the shutdown, Congress has largely shunned reasserting its “power of the purse,” instead allowing the president to dictate which individuals and agencies receive funding, irrespective of Congressional mandates.
Many Causes, No Easy Solutions
There is no singular culprit; rather, a multitude of factors have shaped the ineffective Congress we see today.
One predominant factor is a phenomenon that has emerged over the last 50 years, known as political nationalization. Politics in America have increasingly shifted focus towards national issues, parties, and figures, overshadowing local concerns.
This shift has amplified the role of the president as the symbolic and practical leader of a national party agenda, which in turn diminishes the influence of individual Congress members, who now tend to align closely with party lines over local representation.
This changing landscape means voters prioritize presidential elections over congressional contests, enhancing the president’s power while eroding Congress’s independent authority.
As Congress becomes more polarized along party lines, public trust in its opposition to the president diminishes. Consequently, congressional pushback—even in extreme forms like impeachment—is often perceived merely as partisan maneuvering rather than principled opposition.
Congress has also played its part in relinquishing its own power. Particularly in a highly polarized environment, presidents increasingly lead budget negotiations, often overlooking essential local priorities that Congress is meant to champion.
Rather than Congress maintaining its stance, as it often did in the past, political science research suggests that presidential stances on domestic policy increasingly dictate and polarize Congress’s own positions—even on traditionally uncontroversial subjects like NASA funding. Similarly, procedural stances like raising the debt ceiling or eliminating the filibuster also tend to be influenced more by the identity of the current president than by steadfast principles.
In the realm of foreign policy, Congress has largely forsaken its constitutional duty to declare war, opting instead for “authorizations” of military force that favor presidential interventions. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have been quick to exercise this authority, effectively using congressional approvals to engage in prolonged conflicts like the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the ensuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What’s Lost with a Weak Congress
The consequences of a feeble Congress surrendering authority to the executive branch are significant for Americans.
When individual members of Congress choose to step back, the specific local issues of their districts are less likely to receive the attention and resources they require. Vital local perspectives on national matters risk going unheard within Congress.
Moreover, even among members from the same political party, representing districts with diverse economies, demographics, and geographical features becomes a challenge. Members are traditionally expected to consider these differences during legislation, but presidential control complicates this process.
Perhaps most critically, a weak Congress coupled with what historian Arthur Schlesinger described as the “Imperial Presidency” results in an unaccountable president, unrestrained by the constitutional checks and balances initially designed to protect the people through their representation in the first branch of government.
