Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

Opinion

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders celebrate after the vote on President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 3, 2025.

Yuri Gripas/Abaca Press/TNS

The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, the legislative branch is.

Whatever you think about American politics and government, whether you are on the right, the left or somewhere in the middle, you should be mad at Congress. I don’t just mean the Republican-controlled Congress — though, by all means, be mad at them — I mean the institution as a whole.


Let’s start with the big picture.

In our constitutional system, Congress is the supreme branch of government. It is not “coequal” to other branches, and any claims to the contrary are Nixonian propaganda. The Nixon White House forced “coequal” into mainstream usage to defend itself from congressional oversight. “Coequal” doesn’t appear in the Constitution. It’s used sparingly in the Federalist Papers, but never to describe the relationship between the three branches of government to each other (save for once, to describe the parity between the House and Senate).

Just look at the powers assigned to Congress. It can fire members of the other branches; the other branches can’t fire anyone in Congress. Congress writes the laws. It has sole authority to raise taxes (hardly a minor issue to the Founding Fathers, tax rebels all), borrow money, regulate commerce, and to raise armies and declare war. Congress creates all the courts and federal agencies not specified in the Constitution. It sets and pays their salaries. It has sole authority to admit states to the union. The other branches have nothing like these powers or authorities.

But over the last century, Congress has taken itself apart like a robot ordered to put itself back in the box, giving its functions to the other branches. It bequeathed much of its regulatory powers to the executive branch and the courts. It gifted most of its war and trade authorities to the president.

Congressional leaders also stripped not just members but committee chairs of meaningful influence in the crafting of legislation, effectively disenfranchising the voters who elect them. Leadership simply declares what Congress will do and expects everyone to fall in line. When the same party controls the White House and Congress, the speaker and Senate majority leader peddle the president’s agenda.

Now, consider the moment we’re in. Across a vast array of fronts, President Donald Trump is certainly testing and arguably exceeding his authority. But because he is popular with Republican voters, congressional Republicans won’t do anything about it. Just in the last week or so, Trump ordered troops into Chicago and Portland against the wishes of the governors of Illinois and Oregon (remember, the Founders did think states were coequal with the federal government). The administration also once again rejected Congress’ power of the purse, declaring its refusal to spend money already allocated by Congress, to punish domestic opponents. Oh, and it unilaterally declared we’re at war with drug cartels — after it had ordered three military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, killing 17 people.

What has Congress done? Nothing.

Texas National Guard troops were deployed to a U.S. Army Reserve Center near Chicago Tuesday, but a federal judge did step in to temporarily halt the incursion into what Trump calls “war ravaged” Portland. In response, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller accused the judge — a Trump appointee! — of being just another “far left Democrat” guilty of “judicial insurrection” in league with domestic “terrorist networks.”

Now, I think that is ludicrous and dangerous nonsense. But maybe you don’t. Maybe you think Miller’s right. You know who could settle things? I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “shmongress.”

The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, Congress is. The vacuum created by Congress invites the president to fill it. In response, opponents go straight to the courts to thwart it, pulling the judiciary into political fights for which it’s not suited.

Indeed, if you love everything Trump has done, you should still be mad at Congress because the vast majority of his “achievements” are written in the disappearing ink of executive orders. Congress could make it impossible for judges to overrule his tariffs by making them law. By passing legislation, Congress could also prevent the next Democratic president from rescinding Trump’s orders, the way Trump rescinded Biden’s and Obama’s and Obama rescinded Bush’s.

The Founders certainly believed that courts could weigh in on the constitutionality of legislative and executive action. But they also believed that the Congress could.

Legislators swear an oath to the Constitution, too. Indeed, for much of our history, they would enforce fidelity to the Constitution. Congress would refuse to pass legislation or fund executive action it deemed unconstitutional. And among the things it considered unconstitutional were actions that encroached on its power and authority.

But the supreme branch today is a parliament of pundits, a congress of cowards, far more concerned with partisan point-scoring than honoring their oaths.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.


Read More

Protestors holding signs that read, "Money for People's Needs, Not War W/ Iran," outside of a building.

People protest against the war in Iran on March 2, 2026 in New York, New York. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Israel had launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning.

Adam Gray / Getty Images

How Trump’s Iran War Erodes Democracy and What We Can Do About It

Deciding to go to war is as consequential a decision as any government can make. That has always been the case and is even more so at a time when the weapons of war are so lethal and destructive.

Wars are also very costly to the fabric of democracy in any nation. Whether a war of choice or a defensive conflict, the metric of success in war is victory, not popular approval.

Keep ReadingShow less
Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

The Inherited Stage

A friend recently asked if I was optimistic about the future. Not in any particular context - just one of those casual what kind of person are you kind of questions. I stopped what I was doing. Little did this inquirer know that I was in the midst of a months-long journey into the Founding era of America, and that this particular question was among the first things considered by the people we recognize as our founders. My free time had been enveloped by nonfiction, documentaries, podcasts, and reflective writing. And here, in advance of the country's 250th birthday, was the right question for, as it turned out, the right person. I took a breath and lobbed my answer back -

“Do I really have a choice?”

Keep ReadingShow less
Spectators on a stadium with USA playing.

As political loyalty shifts from institutions to personalities, democratic accountability suffers. Examine the rise of political fandom in democracy.

tomazl / Getty Images

Democracy Needs Citizens, Not Fans

Democracy often rests on the idea that citizens are political equals. They may be associated with different social organisations and ideological traditions, but in the democratic culture, they interact as citizens with equal rights and equal opportunity. In a democracy, devotion was never expected; it was developed to institutionalise disagreement among equals. The democratic system is associated with impersonal rules instead of personal loyalty, where institutions regulate power and citizens have the freedom to interrogate those who govern them.

However, contemporary political culture in India deviates from this democratic spirit. The status of citizenship is gradually turning to the fandom. The success of politicians is increasingly not measured by their ability to contribute to the path of development but by the size of their digital audiences, social media trends, public spectacles, and emotional engagement. The normalisation of social media has accelerated this transformation. Followers, likes, views, and recommendations become a new form of political capital. In this culture, politicians are often more motivated to gain attention than to achieve meaningful policy outcomes. Consequently, politics now resembles celebrity culture, where popularity and visibility are often mistaken for political efficiency.

Keep ReadingShow less
Paper craft illustration of people silhouettes standing on speech bubbles across each other.

A Georgetown student reflects on democracy, political polarization, civic engagement, and why empathy, dialogue, and informed citizens are essential to America's future.

Eugene Mymrin / Getty Images

Democracy is a Responsibility, Not a Guarantee

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Alexis Tamm, a student at Georgetown University and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.

Keep ReadingShow less