Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress must get serious about its capacity or cede power to courts

U.S. Capitol
Richard Fairless/Getty Images

Swift is director of government capacity at POPVOX Foundation.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a cornerstone of administrative law known as the Chevron doctrine represents a seismic shift in the balance of power between the three branches of government.

After 40 years of relying on federal agencies to interpret legislative ambiguities when implementing regulations, it’s now up to courts to discern congressional intent. The Supreme Court did not “return” power to Congress, but it did put the onus on an under-resourced legislative branch to be much more clear in writing laws. If Congress fails to exercise its lawmaking power, it will cede power to the judiciary.


As the “first branch,” Congress must now reassess its ability to fulfill this increased responsibility effectively. A recent House hearing highlighted the urgency of this issue: Witnesses called for Congress to increase its resources to ensure that lawmakers can respond to the needs of constituents, engage in effective lawmaking and maintain robust oversight.

Even with a spotlight on its diminished capacity, the House began summer recess early after failing to pass its latest legislative branch appropriations bill, underscoring the difficulty in securing the necessary funding to strengthen congressional operations. Provisions to increase funding for member and staff salaries should not be controversial, but are typically dead on arrival, leading to chronic underfunding and a congressional “ brain drain ” that has crippled the institution.

After decades of underinvestment, Congress must rebuild its workforce and equip its employees with the tools they need. The legislative branch operates with roughly 1/120th of the resources of the executive branch. The legislative branch has only 31,000 employees across the House, Senate and support agencies with an annual budget of $7 billion, while the executive branch employs 2.97 million individuals and operates with trillions of dollars annually. Funding for congressional operations has not kept pace with other increases in government spending, causing further imbalances and resource constraints. Legislative branch appropriations have increased only 50 percent from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2022 while non-defense discretionary spending grew by over 90 percent in the same period. And most increases in the legislative branch budget went to maintaining buildings and policing the Capitol rather than enhancing legislative capacity.

This constrained funding has taken a toll on the institution and its capacity. From 2011 to 2021, House staff salaries were effectively cut 20 percent when adjusting for inflation while the cost of living in the nation's capital significantly increased. And since the original Chevron decision in the 1980s, Congress has seen a 41 percent reduction in House committee staff and a 25 percent downsizing in critical support offices like the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office.

This decades-long lack of investment has also coincided with an increase in legislative activity and oversight. The number of legislative drafting requests to the House Office of Legislative Counsel has surged by 76 percent since the 115th Congress, while the number of proposed amendments has increased by 39 percent. Despite this growing workload, the Office of Legislative Counsel's operating budget has increased by only 17 percent when adjusted for inflation.

Congress must build on recent modernization efforts to enhance its capacity and reassert its legislative authority. To provide stability, Congress could mandate that annual legislative branch appropriations increase proportionally with non-defense discretionary spending each fiscal year. Implementing this policy beginning in fiscal 2025 would tie legislative funding growth to the overall growth in federal discretionary budgets. Excluding the Capitol Police funding from this proportional growth policy would account for its unique budget needs.

This approach would prevent legislative capacity from lagging and enable investments in staff, technology, operations and infrastructure to support congressional duties. Stable funding would allow congressional offices and agencies to better project budgets over the long term and — most importantly — fortify the first branch of government’s ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

The overturning of Chevron is a wakeup call for a Congress that has often found it difficult to invest in itself or hold its constitutional ground. The ball is on Congress’ court, but if lawmakers don’t step up, it will be the courts that run the game.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less