Republicans in Congress have been making efforts between racks to approve important national laws through the federal budget process. These include possible cuts to Medicaid and the extension of Trump’s tax reductions in 2017.
But although the function of Congress is to approve a budget and establish fiscal policy, most media were formed with presenting key elements of legislation as promoted, not by Congress, but by the President.
Thus, the media claim that the purpose of the bill is “to implement the Trump agenda” or approve Trump’s “tax reductions.” Many even adopted the characteristic name of President Donald Trump for legislation: his “great and beautiful law.”
Together with Casey Burgat and Sorelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Charlie Hunt is co -author of a textbook entitled “The Congress explained: Representation and legislation in the first branch.” In that book, the clear role of Congress stands out as the preeminent legislative body of the federal government.
But from Trump’s investiture, Congress gave the President a large part of his responsibility in the formulation of policies. This makes the attention of the media to Trump not surprising. And it is undeniable that Trump has had a huge impact during his first 100 days in office.
During that time, Congress was reluctant to affirm as an equal government branch. Beyond the formulation of policies, Congress was formed to give up many of its fundamental constitutional powers to the Executive Power. As an expert in Congress, which the institution appreciates and deeply respects its constitutional function, Hunt considers this resignation to responsibility for observing.
And, nevertheless, the path of Congress towards irrelevance as a governing body did not begin in January 2025, but is the result of decades of erosion that created a political culture in which Congress, the first branch of government mentioned in the Constitution, is relegated to the background. The Constitution prioritizes Congress.
The editors of the 18th century Constitution considered Congress the basis of the Republican Government, deliberately placing it first in article 1 to underline their primacy. The Congress was assigned the crucial tasks of the legislation and the elaboration of budgets, since controlling government finances was considered essential to limit the Executive Power and prevent the abuses that the editors associated with the monarchy.
On the other hand, a weak legislature and an imperial executive were precisely what many of the founders feared. With the legislative authority in the hands of Congress, power would at least be decentralized among a wide variety of elected leaders from different parts of the country, each of which would jealously protect their own local interests.
But Trump’s first 100 days revolutionized the original vision of the founders, leaving the “first power” in the background.
We recommend you: The Trump administration dismisses the director of the EU Congress Library
It is not just Trump, Congress presents inefficiency thanks to several factors
Like most recent presidents, Trump came to power with his party controlling the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, despite the legislative power that this government trilogy can contribute, the republican majorities in Congress were, in general, irrelevant to Trump’s agenda.
Instead, Congress depended on Trump and the Executive Power to implement changes in federal policy and, in many cases, to completely remodel the federal government.
Trump signed more than 140 executive orders, a faster rhythm than any president from Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Republican Congress showed little interest in opposing any of them. Trump also reorganized, definance or simply aggressively eliminated entire agencies, such as the United States Agency for International Development and the Office for Consumer Financial Protection.
These actions were carried out despite the fact that Congress has a clear constitutional authority on the budget of the Executive Power. Once again, Congress showed little or no interest in reaffirming its power, even during recent budget negotiations.
Even so, the weakening of Congress did not begin with Trump. There is not a single guilty, but a set of factors that gave rise to the inefficiency of the current Congress.
A determining factor is a process that was developed during the last 50 years or more, called political nationalization. American policy focused more and more on national matters, parties and figures, instead of more local concerns or individuals.
This change raised the importance of the president as a symbolic and practical leader of the national agenda of a party. Simultaneously, the role of congressmen weakens, who now tend more to follow the line of the party than to represent local interests.
As a result, voters focus more on the presidential elections and less on those of the Congress, which gives the President greater influence and decreases the independent authority of the Congress.
The more the congress is polarized among its members according to its partisan lines, the less likely the public is confident in the legitimacy of its opposition to a president. On the other hand, the resistance of the Congress – sometimes as extreme as a political trial – can, to a greater extent than ever, to dismiss not as something based on principles or substantial, but as partisan or politically motivated.
Congress was also complicit to give up his own power. Especially when dealing with a polarized congress, the presidents increasingly direct the budgetary negotiations, which can lead to more local priorities being ignored – the ones that the congress represents.
But instead that Congress defines its own positions, as it used to occur at the beginning of the 21st century, political science research showed that presidential positions in national politics dictate and polarize more and more the Congress’s own positions on policies that have traditionally been divisive, such as financial support for NASA. Congress positions on procedure issues, such as the increase in debt roof or the elimination of filibusterism, also depend more and more on fundamental principles, but who occupies the White House.
What is lost with congressmen in the background?
In the field of foreign policy, Congress practically abandoned its constitutional power to declare war, conforming to the “authorizations” of military force that the president wishes to exercise.
These grant the commander in chief a wide margin of maneuver on the faculties of war, and both Democratic and Republican presidents were willing to preserve that faculty. They used these approvals from Congress to get involved in prolonged conflicts, such as the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the Iraq wars and Afghanistan a decade later.
Americans lose a lot when Congress gives such drastic power to the Executive Power.
When congressmen from all over the country go to the background, it is less likely that the local problems of their districts are addressed with the power and resources that Congress can contribute. Important local perspectives on national matters do not achieve representation in Congress.
Even members of the same political party represent districts with economies, demographies and very different geographies. Congressmen are supposed to take into account when legislating on these issues, but presidential control over the process makes it difficult or makes it impossible.
Perhaps even more important, a weak congress, added to what historian Arthur Schlesinger called the “Imperial Presidency”, is the perfect recipe for an irresponsible president, who acts without control, without the supervision and constitutional controls that the founders granted the people through their representation by the first power of the government.
*Charlie Hunt is an attached professor of Political Science at Boise State University
This article was originally published in The Conversation
Do you like to inform yourself for Google News? Follow our showcase to have the best stories
