Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress must reassert its authority as a check on agencies' actions

Sign above an entrance to the Federal Trade Commission

The Founders had no idea lawmakers would create agencies like the Federal Trade Commission that could set nationwide rules with significant economic, political and social effects.

LD/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. Starting this summer, he will serve as a Tarbell fellow.

The Congressional Review Act deserves your attention. Despite being on the books for decades, it’s only been used on a few occasions. That’s a shame. Though not among the original checks and balances, the CRA reinforces Congress’s role as the primary lawmaker by giving the House and Senate a chance to reject major agency rules.

If used more frequently, concerns about too many regulations, and flawed regulations, might diminish. Yet, Congress has largely treated this power like a power drill in the back of the garage — capable of solving a lot of problems but left unused.


The Founders assumed that each branch of government would vigorously assert its powers. That assumption is baked into the design of the Constitution. Omitted from that design is what’s become known as the fourth branch of government: agencies. Though the Founders expected the president to rely on executive branch staff to help execute the law, they had no idea subsequent lawmakers would create agencies like the Federal Trade Commission that could set nationwide rules with significant economic, political and social effects.

That’s precisely what the FTC did with its recent rule banning noncompete agreements across the country. The commission estimates that the rule will affect 30 million contracts. Though the rule includes some exceptions, it will have wide-ranging impacts on key sectors of the economy. In defense of the FTC, the rule did not emerge out of thin air. Thousands of Americans submitted comments on a draft version. Commissioners sorted through that feedback. They also consulted a range of studies. Still, there’s a meaningful and stark difference between the processes behind a rule and those behind a law.

The most important difference is that the American people cannot vote out FTC commissioners. There’s no direct means of accountability. Even if the FTC set forth a series of questionable rules, commissioners can only be removed by the pPresident for specific, limited reasons.

In contrast, if and when a member of Congress supports a bill that does not align with the interests of their constituents that member will have no means of evading voter scrutiny. This substantial difference in accountability mechanisms can have a substantial impact on the decisions made by officials. Put differently, there are certain rules that Congress might never be able to write into law because any attempt to do so would trigger popular awareness and popular backlash. That’s why Congress enacted the CRA.

Under the CRA, every agency rule must go before Congress. If majorities (even bare ones) of the House and Senate disapprove of a rule, the president then has the chance to concur with Congress or to veto its decision. On paper, this procedural safeguard should make agencies think twice before trying to sneak a major regulation by the public. Reality has played out much differently. The rare use of the CRA by Congress has made the law a show horse — nice to look at but not functional.

The noncompete ban set forth by the FTC marks an opportunity for Congress to find its ambition. Congress, not agencies, is tasked with passing monumental legislation. Though the legislative process is arduous and unpredictable, that's exactly the way the Founders planned it. The constitutionally proper step would be for Congress to use the CRA to disapprove of the noncompete ban and initiate its own processes for legislating such a rule.

Our Constitution is intentionally set up like a Rube Goldberg machine. When things occur too simply, it’s a big red flag that the machine is actually malfunctioning. Substantial legislation should be the product of robust discourse among our representatives, not five unelected commissioners.

Read More

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

America is two very different countries for its diverse population - one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

In 2024, Americans were promised a year of renewal. The election was meant to usher in stability after years of tumult, a chance to repair what had been so badly frayed. Instead, the campaign season laid bare a more uncomfortable truth: the United States is not simply divided by partisan politics. It is, in practice, two very different countries—one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis, hoping not to slip further behind.

The numbers are stark. More than 40 million Americans lived in poverty last year. Nearly 14 million children went hungry. Homelessness surged to almost 772,000 people—an 18 percent rise, the sharpest increase ever recorded. Meanwhile, credit card debt soared past $1.14 trillion, with delinquency rates at their highest in a decade. For families who once defined the middle class, the American Dream now resembles an eviction notice.

Keep ReadingShow less
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