Congress: Assemble!
In recent weeks, as the new administration rolls out its shock and awe beginning to President Trump's second term, many have been asking: where is the co-equal legislative branch of government? Depending on your viewpoint, you may be wondering why Congress isn't doing more to push Trump's agenda, or conversely to fight back against the executive's unconstitutional power grab. But fear not! Congress is back, baby. Finally, an issue which gets them all in a lather, with some dramatic power moves. Is it the meltdown on the stock market and the burgeoning trade war with ... pretty much everyone? Is it the 'invasion' at the southern border? The price of eggs? Err... no, none of that. It's about their own voting processes.
At the center of this controversy is House Resolution 23, which has created an unexpected alliance between Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) while simultaneously causing a rift within the Republican Party.
The resolution, if passed, would allow members of Congress who have given birth or whose spouses have given birth to designate another member to vote on their behalf for up to 12 weeks - a proxy vote. This seemingly straightforward accommodation for new parents has become a flashpoint that recently brought House business to a complete halt.
Procedural Mayhem
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was implacably opposed - he feels that proxy voting in any form raises constitutional concerns and could lead to a "slippery slope." (For more on the fascinating constitutional implications, see this article from 2020). Yet the issue garnered enough support that Luna successfully executed a 'discharge petition', gathering signatures from more than 200 Democrats and 11 Republicans to force floor consideration of the resolution.
The normal process for a bill to come to the floor is for the Rules Committee to set the time and amendment parameters for the bill. A discharge petition 'discharges' the relevant committee from further consideration of the legislation, and therefore allows a floor vote against the recommendation of the committee.
The situation became even more contentious when House leadership attempted to block consideration of the resolution by using a debate and vote on other bills that Republicans support to stop the resolution from being brought to the floor for a vote, leading to a remarkable rebellion where eight Republicans joined Luna in rebelling and taking down the procedural vote. This internal fracture effectively paralyzed the House, preventing it from addressing other pressing legislative priorities. The Speaker was forced to shut the House down to prevent Luna and Pettersen using the discharge petition to force a vote (which they would have won - the fact they managed to get the votes for the petition meant they had the votes to win).
After days of deadlock, a compromise has emerged. Speaker Johnson and Rep. Luna announced on April 6 that they've reached an agreement to formalize "vote pairing" – an existing but rarely used procedure dating back to the 1800s. This arrangement allows an absent member to coordinate with a colleague voting the opposite way who agrees to abstain, effectively canceling out the absence.
"Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement and are formalizing a procedure called 'live/dead pairing' — dating back to the 1800s — for the entire conference to use when unable to physically be present to vote: new parents, bereaved, emergencies," Luna explained in a statement on social media.
Fiddling While Rome Burns, or Crucial Modernization?
While resolved, at least for now, this controversy raises important questions about congressional modernization and work-life balance in America's highest legislative bodies. For supporters, the resolution represents a necessary step toward making Congress more accessible to younger members and those starting families. As Luna pointedly argued, "If we truly want a younger Congress … these are the changes that need to happen."
The timing of this debate is particularly significant as it has delayed consideration of the budget resolution recently passed by the Senate, which provides a framework for President Trump's legislative agenda on tax cuts, border, and energy policy. Some observers question whether this procedural battle over proxy voting deserves to take precedence over these substantive policy matters.
For policy wonks and lovers of procedural minutiae (and who doesn't love an obscure legislative rule being used to cause shenanigans?) this is all good stuff. For many Americans watching from the sidelines, however, the spectacle of Congress grinding to a halt over an issue that primarily affects lawmakers themselves may reinforce a growing sense of disconnection between elected officials and their constituents. At a time when millions of Americans face pressing concerns about inflation, healthcare costs, housing affordability, and global instability, the House's preoccupation with its own internal procedures can appear self-serving and out of touch.
This perception problem is particularly acute given that congressional approval ratings have hovered near historic lows in recent years. When the legislative body responsible for addressing national crises suspends its operations to debate workplace accommodations for its own members – accommodations that many ordinary Americans lack in their own jobs – it potentially widens the trust gap between citizens and their government. Critics argue that this internal focus comes at the expense of addressing legislation that would have tangible impacts on everyday Americans' lives.
However, others view the resolution as addressing a fundamental issue of representation. The current system effectively forces new parents, particularly mothers recovering from childbirth, to choose between their constitutional duty to represent their constituents and their personal responsibilities as parents. This dilemma doesn't just affect the individual members but potentially disenfranchises the hundreds of thousands of Americans they represent.
Working Parents
The proxy voting debate also reflects broader societal conversations about parental leave and accommodations for working parents. While many private sector employees have access to some form of parental leave, members of Congress have traditionally been expected to be physically present for votes regardless of personal circumstances.
Johnson has indicated that beyond the vote pairing agreement, he is "still looking at increasing accessibility for young mothers in the Capitol," including the possibility of "a room for nursing mothers and potentially allowing mothers of young children to use their official funds to travel between their home districts and Washington." These additional accommodations could help address some concerns without fundamentally changing voting procedures.
It's worth noting that this is not the first time Congress has grappled with proxy voting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the House temporarily implemented a proxy voting system, which some Republicans, including Johnson, strongly opposed on constitutional grounds. This history adds another layer of complexity to the current debate.
The resolution and subsequent compromise highlight an ongoing tension in American politics between tradition and modernization, between adhering to established procedures and adapting to changing social norms. As our elected officials continue to reflect the diversity of American society, questions about how institutional practices accommodate different life circumstances will likely persist.
Whether the vote pairing compromise will fully resolve the issue remains to be seen, particularly since any Democrat who signed the discharge petition could still theoretically call it up for a vote. However, if Republicans abide by the agreement and decline to support the resolution on the floor, the immediate crisis appears to be resolved.
The fact that this issue has commanded such attention—even receiving public support from President Trump—suggests that questions about work-life balance and institutional accommodation are becoming increasingly important in American political life, even as other pressing national issues await congressional action.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page.
IssueVoter Bill of the Month (April 2025): Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line was first published by BillTrack50 and was republished with permission.
Cover Photo: provided by BillTrack50























image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.