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

Solidarity Without Borders: Civil Society Must Coordinate Internationally to Protect Democracy and Rights

People standing, holding letters that spell out "courage."

Photo provided

Solidarity Without Borders: Civil Society Must Coordinate Internationally to Protect Democracy and Rights

Across every continent, marginalized communities face systematic, escalating threats wherever democracy comes under attack. In the United States, Black Americans confront voter suppression and attacks on our history. Across the Americas, immigrants and racialized communities face racial profiling and assault by immigration enforcement. In Brazil and across South America, Indigenous peoples endure environmental destruction and rising violence. In Europe, Roma communities, immigrants, and refugees experience discrimination and hostile policies. Across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, members of marginalized ethnic and religious communities face state violence, forced labor, and the denial of basic human rights. In every region of the world, members of the LGBTQ+ community face discrimination and threats.

These are not random or isolated acts of oppression. When considered together, they reveal something more sinister: authoritarianism is becoming increasingly more connected and coordinated around the world. This coordination specifically targets the most vulnerable because authoritarians understand that it is easier to manipulate a divided and fearful society. Attacking those who are most marginalized weakens the entire democratic fabric.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

Donald Trump’s call to “nationalize” elections raises constitutional alarms. A deep dive into federalism, authoritarian warning signs, and 2026 implications.

Getty Images, Boris Zhitkov

A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

I’m well aware that using the word fascist in the headline of an article about Donald Trump invites a predictably negative response from some folks. But before we argue about words (and which labels are accurate and which aren’t), let’s look at the most recent escalation that led me to use it.

In Trump’s latest entry in his ongoing distraction-and-intimidation saga, he publicly suggested that elections should be “nationalized,” yanking control away from the states and concentrating it at the federal level. The remarks came after yet another interview in which Trump again claimed, without evidence, that certain states are “crooked” and incapable of running fair elections, a familiar complaint from the guy who only trusts ballots after they’ve gone his way.

Keep ReadingShow less
Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook
Picture provided

Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook

Around the world, including here in the United States, evidence shows that authoritarians are dominating the information ecosystem. Orchestrated, well-resourced, and weaponized narratives are being used to justify repression and delegitimize democratic principles and institutions. At the same time, the word “democracy” has been appropriated and redefined to protect certain freedoms granted only to certain people and to legitimize unchecked power. These actors have learned from each other. They borrow from a shared authoritarian playbook to blend traditional propaganda with digital-age disinformation techniques to reshape public perception. The result is an environment in which democratic norms, institutions, and basic freedoms are under a coordinated, sustained attack.

Yet even as these threats grow, democracy advocates, journalists, election workers, civil society organizations, and everyday citizens are stepping up—often at great personal risk—to protect democratic rights and expose repression. They have been doing all of this without the benefit of a research-based narrative or the infrastructure to deploy it.

Keep ReadingShow less
As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again
selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash

As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again

I know so many people are approaching America’s 250th anniversary with a sense of trepidation, even dread. Is there really anything to celebrate given the recent chaos and uncertainty we’ve been experiencing? Is productively reckoning with our history a possibility these days? And how hopeful will we allow ourselves to be about the future of the nation, its ideals, and our sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves?

Amid the chaos and uncertainty of 2026, I find myself returning to the words of the writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin. Just as things looked darkest to Baldwin amid the struggle for civil rights, he refused to give up or submit or wallow in despair.

Keep ReadingShow less