Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress is busy with under-the-radar bipartisan legislation

US Capitol

A GovTrack study found that Congress has passed a number of important bills with bipartisan support.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

West is a staff writer for GovTrack.

From news coverage, one might get the impression that Congress is incapable of passing any laws. Certainly congressional Republicans haven’t done themselves any favors on this front, with constant, public infighting and high-profile, mid-session resignations including that of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was deposed by the fringe of his party. But is that impression entirely correct?

We at GovTrack analyzed our extensive database and organized the data to see if that impression was correct, and we discovered some compelling information. When we looked at the 56 most substantive bills that were voted on in Congress so far this year (53 of them in the House), nearly two-thirds were passed with bipartisan support.


First, ground rules that we followed: We excluded procedural votes, nomination votes, post office namings, voice/unanimous consent votes and government funding votes. That left us with 56 roll call votes to review. Then, we decided our categories would be party line, slightly bipartisan (some Democrats voting yes, but not many; a total “yes” count of under 300) and very bipartisan (total “yes” votes of over 300, usually by quite a bit).

Our impression that there were lots of very bipartisan votes was correct: 33 of the 56, or 59 percent. There were only 16 slightly bipartisan votes (28 percent) and the smallest category was party-line with only seven votes (12.5 percent).

So what’s going on? There are some areas (examples included) where there’s clearly a broad willingness to work together:

And, surprisingly, the bipartisan list included some so-called authorization bills, which direct how federal agencies should spend money but not how much money they get.

Other bills that passed with significant House support tended to be one-offs: the bill to ban TikTok, a tax policy bill and a bill to allow victims and family of victims of the Pan Am bombing in 1988 to view the court proceedings remotely.

Most of these bills have yet to see Senate action even though many of them fall under traditional government work. Three of the 56 have been enacted:

It is quite possible, now that the government is funded through the end of September, that we’ll see some Senate votes on the other 53.

Even though they’re many fewer in number, what stands out about the bills passed along party lines or with slight bipartisan support is that they’re related to the top issues in the upcoming elections for president and Congress.

These votes include efforts to repeal environmental regulations, establish government funding for anti-abortion messaging on college campuses, increase punishments for immigrants in various ways and the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

While it’s unclear which of these categories will end up with the most bills becoming law, we can at least say that the impression that Congress is entirely dysfunctional is incorrect. It can and does function. How things will go from here is hard to predict, especially with House Republicans’ increasingly shrinking majority thanks to multiple resignations.

Read More

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.
Getty Images, fotostorm

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.

The following letter is in response to "Lamont vetoed HB 5002. What could the reworked bill include?" published by the CT Mirror.

In 1999, Connecticut made a promise. As the state downsized psychiatric institutions, leaders pledged to reinvest those funds into home and community-based services. The goal was clear: honor the Olmstead decision, reduce unnecessary institutionalization, and build systems that support people where they live—with dignity, autonomy, and care.

Keep ReadingShow less
USAID flag outside a building
A USAID flag outside a building.
J. David Ake/Getty Images

A Glimmer of Hope in a Season of Cruelty

In a recent interview, New York Times and Atlantic contributor Peter Wehner did not mince words about President Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashing of funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). “This to me was an act of wanton cruelty,” Wehner said. “You really had to go out of your way to think, ‘How can I kill millions of people quickly, efficiently?’ And they found one way to do it, which is to shatter USAID.”

Wehner is not alone in his outrage. At the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival, fellow conservative columnist David Brooks echoed the sentiment: “That one decision [gutting USAID] fills me with a kind of rage that I don’t usually experience.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Court to Trump: Your Tariffs Are Illegal

Activists of different trade unions burn an effigy of US President Donald Trump to protest against the recent tariff hikes imposed by the US on India during a demonstration in Kolkata on August 13, 2025.

(Photo by DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP via Getty Images)

Court to Trump: Your Tariffs Are Illegal

The stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown is set after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of former President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were unlawful.

Trump imposed a series of tariffs, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 as justification. He declared national emergencies over trade deficits and drug trafficking to impose levies on countries, including China, Canada, Mexico, and nearly all U.S. trading partners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mamdani & The Socialism Canard
File:Zohran Mamdani at the Resist Fascism Rally in Bryant Park on ...

Mamdani & The Socialism Canard

Every time Democrats propose having the government provide new assistance to those in need or a new regulation of business, the Republicans cry out, “This is Socialism.”

But after Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, his fellow Democrats beat them to it. They were aroused primarily, I think, because they feared what a negative reaction to Mamdani from big business would do to Democrats' chances nationally in the upcoming mid-term elections. They should be ashamed of themselves for having become so beholden to big business and for joining Republicans in criticizing by labeling a suggestion for dealing with current societal problems that is consistent with our form of economy.

Keep ReadingShow less