Congressional Irrelevance – March 23, 2026

For the purposes of this conversation on the increasing irrelevance of Congress, the intention is to focus on two key supporting areas of the debate. One, the concept of Congress over the years surrendering more and more of their purpose and power over to the Executive Branch. Two, in the modern era especially the general approval rating for Congress being consistently very low.

A few supporting arguments of course related to how our duopoly of political power tends to go about this and how public perception is guided by a complicit mainstream media complex that tends to at best ignore the trend assuming their side of the political equation is in charge.

Areas of Congress giving away their Function

The most obvious, and arguably most impacting, is War Powers. All one has to do is go read the Constitution specifically Article I, Section 8 is found in Clause 11 and it is obvious Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war.

Hamilton in Federalist No. 69 was very clear about the intentions to divide leadership of force from legislative function to declare the need for force. On Hamilton’s mind, and those likeminded, was a concern over “monarch” style rule as they all knew all too well royalty prevalent in Europe both lead their forces and decided whom they would go fight.

So, two clear distinctions were made in both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers on the power to declare war and the role of the “First General” (called that at the time later shifting to Commander in Chief.) This was entirely contrast to whom the US obtained independence from, the King of Great Britain, the difference between “royalty” and “profession” (as in execution) of war.

Fast forward to today… well, hold that thought… start with the reality that the last time Congress formally declared war on anyone was June 5, 1942.

World War II where Roosevelt got together with Congress who passed three separate joint resolutions declaring war against the Axis-aligned nations of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. This was follow up to Congressional acts against Germany and Japan the prior year. And that period happens to be the end of Congressional seriousness in handling this responsibility.

A difficult stat to keep in mind here is Congress had only formally declared war 11 times, not a single one of them in the modern era, resigning themselves to word games from WWII on in what it means to be “at war” vs. dealing with someone and/or some conflict somewhere. Each time since, Congress cannot be bothered with formalities.

This includes some of the longest military engagements in all of US history, where Congress decided to sit on the sidelines entirely ignoring their Constitutional duty, to handle when we send our forces somewhere for some reason.

War in Afghanistan, almost 20 years of fighting, only to give the nation back to the very people we took it from. Vietnam War, in all something like 19 years (some prior to direct US involvement,) Congress was fine with a draft but not very interested in anything else formal. Iraq War, either time, Congress decided not worth the effort. Even the War in Korea, another fight for “the greatest generation,” no formal declaration never made. Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Niger, places where some of our troops still remain today. 10, 20 years in sometimes and still Congress cannot be bothered.

What is going on with Venezuela these past months starting with a military operation masquerading as a law enforcement operation, and this recent engagement with Iran where the Trump Administration basically wants a Billion per day to keep going is all being done with Congress not interested in much action on their part. Speaker Johnson even going so far as to say “it is not a war,” even though we are spending quite a bit each day to destroy a nation.

One could argue that terribly written and unchecked various Emergency Powers Acts unleashed any President to effectively send the military anywhere on the planet for really any reason. All without being troubled by talking to Congress. It is not as if these are challenged all that often, if ever, but the net effect is the exact opposite of what Hamilton was talking about.

What about the Power of the Purse, that could arguably be the biggest function of Congress and perhaps higher in value than the ability to declare war.

Again, two critical parts to evaluate. The core power of budgetary function, from department to department and fiscal year to fiscal year, in the ultimate goal of taxation and spending determination (we have talked about that a time or two already) and the largely now useless Commerce Clause (as in handling trade and the implementation of tariffs.)

For the first part, we covered that a bit with an earlier conversation on Budgeting and somewhat again with The Idea of Accountability, but you already know that Congress does not take this function all that seriously. Even this current Congress is in their third government shutdown of some regard, and for the two year term of this Congress we still have many months to go.

For the second part, we have also covered that with Uncertainty on what tariffs actually are and who actually pays them (up front and later.) Even with recent Supreme Court ruling all that ended up doing was shifting how Trump determined his ability to replace the tariff and by what authority. Cut away all the fat from the political argument and it still boils down to some combination of Emergency Powers Acts. A handoff from Congress to a President to decide on their own something is needed and what do to about it, while Congress does… whatever they do.

We do not have to go that in depth over the Power of Regulation, said another way the function of Congress to be the regulatory body handling various aspects of our society and economy. Sure, members of Congress may argue complexity or that Executive Branch agencies have more agile ability to handle things, but we have already made argument that Congress started to surrender their function as the ink was drying on the Constitution itself. Look at this as coming up with a reason after doing something.

Consider this, and review references as here we are using the Federal Register and various Acts passed, but over the last half-century Congresses and sometimes Presidents directly, have established over 240 administrative agencies via legislation, executive orders, and reorganization plans. That number, 240, represents a solid majority of all agencies currently listed by that Federal Register. Meaning, the Executive Branch is getting faster and bigger all the while Congress sits back and yet again cannot be bothered.

Sure, they will have hearings and go after executive or political opposition but when asked to perform their core functions as the Legislative Branch their track record and job performance is arguably getting consistently worse. All giving you the most elegant evidence and argument you will ever get that Congress has surrendered their core functions.

Approval Rating for Congress

Something else appearing in prior conversations is the awkward paradoxes when it comes to Congressional Approval Ratings.

Per Gallup polling on Congress, roughly 80% of Americans disapprove of Congress usually framed as “handling their job.” With roughly 16% approving and another 4% somewhere on a fence. In just this year that has been the low point, roughly 18% approved of Congress in early January. The current numbers represents a low spot not seen since late 2025.

By the responses most are upset over the government shutdowns, one the largest in US history at the time. And now we have this even longer partial government shutdown largely related to the absolute wants of Republicans against Democrats starting in late January and still going today. No deal in sight, TSA working without pay, and now ICE running around various US airports helping.

One paradox to keep in mind, once Immigration became the division point over last year Republican approval ratings for Congress hit a 20-year high of 61%, and naturally Democratic approval ratings hit a near record low of 6%. At the time Republicans getting some of what they wanted, record numbers of deportations and the economy had not slowed just yet. Democrats at the time worried about the multiple-direction and ever changing tariff trade war plus the inverse opinion on DHS – ICE activities.

The other paradox to keep in mind is the “incumbency” paradox, and that is two fold as well. One, Americans as a whole do not like Congress but at a district level often approve of their specific representative. The paradox of low approval ratings for all of Congress but generally above 90% reelection rates for those in a seat. The House hit 96% and the Senate hit 88% from the last Congress to the current. We have also discussed how well the Senate generally holds their seats being state wide and how few House seats are considered “competitive” thanks to clever districting. As in, less than 10% of all House seats could go either way.

So, you may argue that Congress is rarely punished for poor performance outside of midterm flips for those few House seats or “vulnerable” Senate seats for States not solid red or blue, but the individual usually enjoys long lasting tenures holding their seat. Of the 100 Senators in the current Congress, 45 of them at one time were a Representative. Some have been in Congress decades.

And with that you may also argue, disapproval numbers being high has no real bearing on massive shifts in majority to minority status (or the other way around depending on point of view.) Lots to complain about, very little is done other than the expected midterm flip to slow a President down.

Perceptions of Congress

We may have a solid perception issue to dive into.

Not that long ago we talked about America’s Wide Divisions, an entry point to talking about the distance between solid MAGA Republicans and the marching further left Liberalism encampment of the Democratic Party. To the point that the overwhelming majority of the nation is not loyal to either one, issue or issues voting that tends to catch everyone from ABC to CNN to FoxNews off guard on election nights.

Add that to this conversation and there is some clarity on why Congress does not have to address, let alone apologize, for not just surrendering much of their core function over to the Executive Branch but even explain what little function they have left still being handled at levels of pure ineptness. Not just failing at keeping the government open but trying to keep a President in check either.

It then makes sense that Congress can continue to operate at levels of lunacy, apathy, and stupidity yet continue to enjoy plenty of years in office all the while staying in the game of political rhetoric warfare and chamber floor theatrics. Because there are no large scale coordinated “house cleanings” of Congress we are stuck with members serving for decades and a few reaching their 90s in age still voting on things… occasionally… that impact us all.

Possible Conclusions

Because we know that Congress rarely, if ever, votes for restrictions for themselves it very well may come down to voter demand. From that largest demographic, those not loyal to Republicans or Democrats, in suggesting Congress grab back what they should be in control over by Constitutional grounds but also get back to the business of solving concerns through the very purposeful negotiations between our duopoly of political power in a manner that ole Newt Gingrich hated.

Independents voting for independent thinking.

One argument and conclusion to take more seriously is the idea of division oriented politics by design stalling the function of legislation with more stress on the executive function to operate outside of confines. If a President has a complicit Congress, all of the same party President to majority Congress, even if just for 2 of 4 years of a presidential term then that level of latitude means no real blocker to a President’s wants even if the public is none too happy about it.

Most of what is mentioned in this conversation is about responsibility, as outlined by the Constitution but also voter concern. What Congress does not bother themselves with in combination with how they conduct themselves day in day out suggests more is needed but a few seats flipping.

It could mean that Democrats are no better than Republicans when running one or both chambers of Congress, and by extension that likely also means that Speaker Mike Johnson is no better or worse than Nancy Pelosi or looking at this another way that John Boehner was a product of Newt Gingrich.

If you were to look at this as “maintain caucus discipline” and “legislative productivity” in the modern era then the counter to that may be that it occurred when one party controlled the Presidency and both chambers of Congress. Meaning, the party was successful but was the voter? That is not always a solid yes or no. A natural yet warranted consideration is that nationalization of issues does not always mean a legislative success meant the voter, the people, made out better for it. Sure they give themselves a medal, plenty of props.

Looking at it that way could mean a conclusion is any Speaker determined to be successful was because of a condition, single party control, but also as determined by the will of the President at the time. Entirely opposite, in every single context, to how the Constitution was written and why.

It also means that it is possible that Speaker Johnson will still go down as one of the worst and most ineffective Speakers not because of what happened to the voter but that he could not even manage his slim majority who are all kept on a tight leash by President Trump. From leadership and seniority in Congress down to those in their 1st or 2nd term.

A parting thought…

It is easy to argue that the Federalist Papers explicitly put forth that the function of governing under the Constitution was designed on purpose to be challenging, slow, and with intentional frictions. Federalist No. 10, 51, 62, and 70 all have elements supporting the assertion that speed is adversarial to stability, having two chambers of Congress was intentional to prevent over legislation and force argument to compromise, and that the three branches of government were designed to challenge one another. All to prevent unchecked ambitions harming the voter.

When you get down to it, disagreement between the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch specifically was not a flaw but a designed feature to protect individual liberty and also to prevent any one group, or party, from gaining too much power and using that power too quickly.

What is happening today is not what was envisioned, and a serious consideration in that mix of disfunction is how frequently, and how strongly, Congress surrenders their role to the Executive Branch. Ending up in the hands of one person, with one agenda and their own power, all not necessarily what the voter wants.

A two year potential midterm flip of Congress is one slowdown to runaway Executive Branch activity, so is another shot for the voter in 4 years to determine the next President. And since politicization of the courts is a realized issue, the Judicial Branch is not much better at considering the fundamentals of the Constitution. What it means to govern with complexity, limits, and checks. And speaking of the Supreme Court, they too are at near record low approval ratings no matter if characterized by performance, or confidence, or some other clever polling benchmark. Regardless, the country concluded years ago that the Supreme Court was less about Constitutionality in the limitation sense but more about how can the action be explained in terms of getting around those limits.

Even more argument for Congress to get their own house in order, then reclaim why Congress is mentioned first in the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 1, arguably most important in the context of “representative democracy.”

The 17th Amendment added to this, moving the Senate from elected by State Legislators who could not get their shit together to direct voting by the people. Once the “Treason of the Senate” started to make people think about how bad that chamber was functioning, eventually the people became the drivers for both chambers of Congress. Look at them both today.

The will of the voter… at least on paper.

Instead of most, if not all, becoming very wealthy for being in Congress we need to see added back those in Congress performing the part. Consider all this when listening to those in Congress now talk about who is to blame for whatever fault is occurring. Or when they mention “The American People want <insert here whatever the party is going for.>”

Turns out, they might just have themselves, and only themselves, to blame.