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

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