Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Capitol Hill insiders say Congress is ineffective but can be fixed

divided Congress
zimmytws/Getty Images

Congressional staffers, the people who make Capitol Hill run, believe the legislative branch isn’t doing its job and blame polarization for the problems.

That’s the takeaway from “State of the Congress 2022,” a report issued last week by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service, featuring the opinions of a bipartisan collection of “institutionalists” working on Capitol Hill.

While staffers were critical of Congress, the goal of the report wasn’t to find fault but to assess the capacity, functionality and effectiveness in hopes of finding a path toward a more functional legislative branch.

The report was generated to “capture the snapshot of the state of Congress now, not for the purposes of embarrassing the institution, but rather to be a benchmark that can be used to measure improvement,” said CMF President and CEO Brad Fitch.


New polling data released by Gallup last week found that only 7 percent of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress – down 5 points from 2021. That’s the lowest of 16 public- and private-sector institutions covered in the survey. But, according to the “State of the Congress” report, “80% of Americans also believe that an effective Congress is essential to running the country.”

But the congressional aides surveyed for the report – 128 “exemplars,” most with at least a decade of experience and representing a variety of demographics and positions – believe Congress is a long way from being effective.

One-quarter believe “Congress currently functions as a democratic legislature should,” with Democrats a bit more pessimistic than Republicans. Both sides believe lawmakers and staff must have an understanding of Congress’ role in democracy. Only 4 percent said that they were “very satisfied” with Congress’ current state.

And the lack of effectiveness is at last partly rooted in increased partisanship, in the view of the exemplars.

According to Fitch, “there have been increasing levels of dysfunction and a greater amount of polarization in the institution in the last three decades.”

More Democrats than Republicans believe that members of Congress are not adequately held accountable by the institution for their actions. Nearly equal numbers of Democrats (66 percent) and Republicans (70 percent) believe that congressional leadership should enforce the rules of decorum and civility. Moreover, two-thirds of Democrats (66 percent) and slightly more than half of Republicans (54 percent) “strongly agree” that noncontroversial legislation is likely to fail due to polarization among lawmakers.

Further, Democratic and Republican exemplars believe lawmakers’ primary role should be solving constituents’ problems but 54 percent say Congress lacks the means for understanding citizens’ concerns. (However, that answer is weighted heavily by party, with 68 percent of Democrats agreeing with the statement, compared to just 36 percent of Republicans.

And the parties are split on the next highest priority, with 24 percent of Republicans selecting “supporting political party policy” and 22 percent of Democrats saying “law-making.”

Overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans believe that civility among lawmakers is “very important” but only 1 percent of those surveyed were “very satisfied” on that front. “Not civility, for ... civility’s sake, but civility towards an end, which is to make our democracy work better,” Fitch said.

While not as high a priority as civility, bipartisanship is also seen as a key element of a functioning Congress.

The survey found that 59 percent of participants believe bipartisanship is “very important” but, again, only 1 percent are “very satisfied” with that aspect of Congress.

Along the same lines, 93 percent of both Democrats and Republicans believe that collaboration between party lines is necessary to best serve the nation’s needs, but very few believed that building a relationship would be easy.

“My sense is that most staff would generally welcome greater collaboration across the aisle, but that the political dynamics on both sides present a chilling effect on efforts to do so,” one Senate staffer said.

Despite their concern about Congress ability to do its job, the exemplars suggested areas where there are opportunities for improvement. They general agreed that four areas are “very important”:

  • “reclaiming Congress’ constitutionally-defined duties” (75 percent) .
  • “improving staff recruitment, diversity, retention, compensation, and benefits” (69 percent).
  • “reforming the budget and appropriations process” (61 percent).
  • “ensuring continuity of congressional operations in emergencies” (61 percent).

But to achieve any of these goals, the staffers believe Congress must build capacity and infrastructure because they believe there are large gaps between what is required and what is in place now.

For example, 80 percent said it is very important that “Congress have adequate capacity and support to perform its role in American democracy” but only 5 percent said they are “very satisfied” with what’s in place now. And 74 percent said it’s very important that Congress have sufficient technological infrastructure to support members’ duties. Again, just 4 percent were “very satisfied” with the current technological infrastructure.

Despite the seemingly dire data contained in the report, Fitch is optimistic that Congress has the capacity to improve and is already set on a positive path. However, he emphasized that “one of the sources of either instability or hyper-partisanship is not the rank and file but the leadership” and the leaders will need to push for change.

“I think there are some guideposts embedded in this report that will give current and future reformers both inside and outside the institution ideas and a bit of a roadmap on how to improve the Congress,” Fitch explained. He stressed the importance of the Modernization Committee that will hopefully assess Congress’ path and suggest changes for improvement if needed.

The report points to the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, which has achieved bipartisan support for nearly 150 recommendations to improve the legislative branch’s operations.

Read the report.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less