Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Presidency Is Too Powerful. Congress Needs To Step Up.

Opinion

Donald Trump
Former President Donald Trump attends the Republican National Convention on July 18.
Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

The country commemorated Constitution Day this week, a day that recognizes the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787. This op-ed will be the first in a series that outlines a cross-partisan vision to restore congressional authority, as outlined in Article I of the Constitution, and protect our system of checks and balances.

As we recognize Constitution Day this week, Americans aren’t just reflecting on the wisdom of the Founders — we are confronting a sobering question: Has Congress ceded so much power to the presidency that our system of checks and balances is at risk? From threats to deploy more National Guard members into American cities to unilateral action on trade, recent events have shown how far executive authority can be stretched. These aren’t simply policy disputes. They are direct challenges to the constitutional framework that has safeguarded our democracy for nearly 250 years.


The threats to our system of checks and balances did not emerge overnight. They are not the consequence of one man or one movement. For decades, Congress has steadily ceded its constitutionally granted authority to Republican and Democratic presidents. Each step may have seemed minor at the time, but together they have tilted the balance of power in ways the Founders warned would be dangerous.

Congress is defined in Article I — not II — of the Constitution for a reason. Our Founders understood that a concentration of power in the office of the president could lead to the type of tyranny they fought a revolution to end. They believed that a diversity of views in a representative legislature was a more dynamic and balanced way of governing. This is why the Constitution grants Congress specific and immutable powers, ensuring that no president could rule like a monarch.

Numerous important issues are competing for Americans’ attention at present. Defending the Constitution may seem abstract by comparison. However, according to a new national poll by Issue One and YouGov, Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support our constitutional checks and balances. Nearly 1 in 3 voters (32%) ranked the president as having too much power as their top issue of concern, just below inflation (46%), jobs (34%), and immigration (34%). Perhaps even more striking, 79% of independents said that President Trump was going too far in trying to get his agenda passed without congressional approval.

Voters also expressed a clear preference for leaders who respect our system of government. 72% would prefer a candidate who acts with respect for institutions and rules, rather than ignoring the Constitution to act with greater speed and urgency, including nearly three-quarters of independents (73%) and a majority of Republicans (57%).

These findings point to a powerful truth: Americans value checks and balances, and they would back Congress if it stepped up to rein in executive overreach — opening the door for cross-partisan cooperation in an area where it is badly needed.

This week, Issue One has presented a reform agenda comprising six legislative proposals aimed at restoring congressional authority in key areas: trade, war powers, domestic military deployment, elections, and national emergencies. We will build on these proposals in greater depth in future installments of this op-ed series. Still, each proposal is rooted in the specific constitutional responsibilities outlined by the clauses of Article I — not partisan wish lists.

Unless we recommit to a republic based on constitutional principles, we will struggle to address the issues that voters care most about in a meaningful way. A government dominated by a single executive will inevitably drift toward serving the interests of the president, ultrawealthy donors, and special interests — not the American people.

Maintaining our republic is an active choice that each generation must recommit to. As Benjamin Franklin said on September 17, 1787, right after the Constitution was ratified, the United States was “A republic, if you can keep it.” This is why members of Congress must do their job and hold presidents accountable. Defending the Constitution is not a matter of left or right. It is about preserving self-government and ensuring that the United States remains a democracy where power ultimately rests with the people.

Nick Penniman is the founder and CEO of Issue One, a D.C.-based nonprofit focused on building bipartisan power to strengthen the foundations of American democracy.

Read More

Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less