Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Real Shutdown: Congress’s Surrender of Power

Opinion

The Real Shutdown: Congress’s Surrender of Power
white concrete dome museum

Introduction: The Real Shutdown Inside Congress

Marjorie Taylor Greene has surprised many by questioning her party’s shutdown strategy, making her seem more pragmatic than GOP leaders. On this issue, she is right: the federal government is dark, and the clock is running down. Whether or not this becomes the longest shutdown in U.S. history, the damage is already done.

Earlier shutdowns—Clinton’s fight with Gingrich in 1995, Obama’s battle with House Republicans in 2013, Trump’s 2018 border wall standoff—were disruptive but contained. Agencies furloughed workers, parks closed, markets wobbled, and then the government reopened, usually with a compromise. What makes this shutdown different is what’s at stake: not just funding, but Congress’s very capacity to function as a coequal branch of government.


For years, lawmakers have relied on short-term funding patches instead of passing real budgets. Each delay weakens Congress’s control over spending and strengthens the executive. Now, as some Republicans begin to break ranks, the deeper problem remains: a Congress afraid of blame, a GOP unwilling to confront Trump, and a presidency eager to fill the vacuum.

The real shutdown isn’t confined to darkened federal offices. It’s unfolding inside Congress itself—an institution that has slowly, and perhaps irreversibly, shut down its own ability to govern.

II. How Congress Got Here

The seeds of this shutdown were planted decades ago. The 1974 Budget Act was designed to restore congressional control after President Nixon refused to spend funds that lawmakers had approved. Ironically, that reform has become the mechanism of Congress’s undoing. Strict deadlines and complex rules encouraged political standoffs, and presidents quickly learned to take advantage whenever Congress failed to meet them.

By the 1990s, shutdowns had become political theater. Gingrich’s 1995 clash with Clinton was the first to weaponize the threat of closure as ideological leverage. Even then, congressional leaders accepted responsibility for ending the crisis because they still saw themselves as stewards of the institution. That sense of stewardship has disappeared, a stark reminder of how swiftly accountability fades when politics devolves into spectacle.

Today’s GOP treats fiscal chaos not as failure but as strategy. Speaker Johnson’s caucus, under pressure from the far-right Freedom Caucus, views paralysis as proof of principle—better to burn down the process than risk compromise. Earlier Republican leaders, from Howard Baker to John Boehner, recognized the true cost of dysfunction. Their successors have chosen submission instead.

Earlier Congresses assumed governing was part of their job. Appropriations bills were debated, amended, and passed through the usual committee process, known in Congress as ‘regular order.’ Committee chairs wielded expertise. Compromise was expected. Today, those habits have been replaced by crisis management through continuing resolutions and executive end-runs. Lawmakers act for the cameras, not the country.

If earlier generations of lawmakers worried about “big government,” today’s should worry about no government at all. This institutional drift stems from ideology, fear, and spectacle. Many Republicans have refused to confront Trump’s hold over their base, fearing that any challenge to him could provoke backlash from MAGA loyalists and cost them politically. Partisan identity has replaced institutional duty, leaving Congress adrift and the presidency stronger than ever.

III. The Quiet Transfer of Power

As Congress stalls, the presidency expands to fill the void. What once required deliberative congressional action is now rushed through in the form of executive orders and emergency declarations. The shutdown has only accelerated this trend, granting the White House de facto control over how and when to spend federal dollars.

It doesn’t take a coup to shift the balance of power, only routine abdication. Each continuing resolution, each emergency declaration, each delayed budget becomes another precedent for executive dominance. The pattern has persisted across administrations, but Trump’s second term has institutionalized it. He doesn’t need Congress to pass sweeping laws; he needs it to fail. The resulting concentration of power is quieter than a constitutional crisis, but every bit as consequential.

Meanwhile, the public grows accustomed to governing by decree. The expectation that presidents will solve every problem—from border policy to student loans—further marginalizes Congress. What the Founders designed as a system of shared power has become one of deferred responsibility, with the legislature acting as a spectator to its own diminishment.

IV. Conclusion: Reopening Congress

The shutdown will end, but the deeper crisis will remain. Restoring balance requires more than reopening the government; it demands reopening Congress itself.

First, lawmakers must return to regular order—passing appropriations through committees rather than relying on endless continuing resolutions. That alone would begin to reassert legislative authority over federal spending. Second, both parties must recommit to oversight as a shared constitutional duty, not a partisan weapon. The point of oversight is accountability, not ammunition.

Third, Congress needs leaders willing to defend the institution even at political cost. That means challenging executive overreach regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Members who still believe in representative government must start behaving like its custodians, not commentators on its decline.

Finally, the public must demand a functioning legislature. Voters, too, have a role in this crisis—rewarding those who govern responsibly, not those who perform outrage on cable news. The Founders built a system that depends on civic engagement to keep power in check. Without that, no reform will last.

The real shutdown isn’t about missed paychecks or closed parks. It’s about a democracy that can no longer perform its most basic task: self-government. The cure isn’t another executive order or emergency declaration—it’s a Congress that works. Reopening the government will take a vote. Reopening the Republic will take courage.

Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust


Image generated by IVN staff.

How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust

Mandate for Change: The Public Calls for a Course Correction

The honeymoon is over. A new national survey from the Independent Center reveals that a plurality of American adults and registered voters believe key cabinet officials should be replaced—a striking rebuke of the administration’s current direction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all underwater with the public, especially among independents.

But the message isn’t just about frustration—it’s about opportunity. Voters are signaling that these leaders can still win back public trust by realigning their policies with the issues Americans care about most. The data offers a clear roadmap for course correction.

Health and Human Services: RFK Jr. Is Losing the Middle

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is emerging as a political liability—not just to the administration, but to the broader independent movement he once claimed to represent. While his favorability ratings are roughly even, the plurality of adults and registered voters now say he should be replaced. This sentiment is especially strong among independents, who once viewed Kennedy as a fresh alternative but now see him as out of step with their values.

Keep ReadingShow less
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Epstein abuse survivor Haley Robson (C) reacts alongside Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) (R) as the family of Virginia Giuffre speaks during a news conference with lawmakers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol on November 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Today, the House of Representatives is voting on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. For months, the measure languished in procedural limbo. Now, thanks to a discharge petition signed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans, the vote is finally happening.

But the real story is not simply about transparency. It is about political courage—and the cost of breaking ranks with Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less