Congress is the key to making government work again. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 
Brennan Center for Justice The Briefing
This week, I’m turning The Briefing over to my colleague Maya Kornberg, a senior research fellow in our Elections and Government Program and author of the forthcoming book Stuck: How Money, Media, and Violence Prevent Change in Congress, to discuss how we can get government working again.
—Michael Waldman
The longest government shutdown in history ended last week. The 43-day shutdown reminded us just how stuck our government is — and that Congress remains the key to unsticking it.
Congress and the executive branch have long been embroiled in an interbranch power struggle, including fighting over spending powers. The second-longest government shutdown in history, the 21-day budget impasse beginning in late 1995, provides an important example. A balanced budget was a central priority of the Republicans who had retaken control of the House after 40 years in the minority. The Newt Gingrich–led House pushed for spending cuts, which President Bill Clinton vetoed.
One of the key points of contention during the negotiation was whether to rely on projections from the Congressional Budget Office or the White House Office of Management and Budget. Clinton said House Republicans “failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums,” a statement reminiscent of the recent shutdown. After weeks of back-and-forth with the Clinton administration, Republicans abandoned their quest to balance the budget and acquiesced. The three-week stalemate was a showdown between House leadership from one party and a president from another.
Fights over impoundment — the claim that the president has the power to not spend money that Congress has approved — are also not new. Although impoundment is unconstitutional, President Richard Nixon still withheld more than $50 billion in the early 1970s. Carl Albert, House speaker at the time, wrote, “Take away this power [of the purse], and Congress is nothing more than a debating society. . . . The votes the people cast for their representatives would become meaningless acts. Unchecked by this fundamental legislative power, any President would have the autocratic prerogative to do and spend as he pleases.”
President Trump revived impoundment, describing it at one of his rallies as something that “allows the president to go out and cut things and save a fortune for our country. Things that make no sense.” He paused the work of entire federal agencies, took back funds from New York City after disbursement, and defied Congress by moving to cut $5 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already approved.
This is a dangerous precedent. A supine Congress threatens our constitutional order and our democracy. We know from international examples of democratic backsliding that when weak legislatures cede power to the executive, authoritarian leaders can more easily consolidate power. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party changed the Constitution and stripped the legislature of many powers, solidifying the autocrat’s unilateral control. On the other hand, in South Korea after the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, the Korean National Assembly’s investigative authority and oversight were expanded in a series of reforms that strengthened Korean democracy.
As I explain in my forthcoming book, Stuck, rising tides of violence, distortions of money in politics, and technological shifts have undermined Congress’s ability to act over the last 50 years. The book begins immediately after Watergate in 1974, when a class of reformers came to Washington to fix American democracy. It follows three of the largest groups of new members elected to Congress in the past half century — the classes of 1974, 1994, and 2018. Each one was roused by notions that our politics were broken and the president had overstepped his bounds. The historical survey explains how Congress became so mired in a historical morass that it is no longer coequal with the executive, and posits that its members can no longer perform their roles.
The book also presents a plan for unsticking Congress and restoring its capacity to govern. Campaign finance reform is critical to ensure that members of Congress have time to devote to oversight and legislation instead of spending hours courting donors. Overhauling inefficient internal structures and increasing member resources in a Congress that has 120 times less funding than the executive branch are also crucial steps to grant the legislative branch the independent power necessary to provide a check on the executive. And in a climate where political violence is constricting civic engagement, deterring people from running for or remaining in office, and even swaying how they vote when they fear violence, we must invest in the policy changes needed to keep members safe. The book details these and other policy changes that can get Congress back on track.
Congress is malleable. It moves in cycles. It is shaped and reformed by the people who walk its halls and those who elect them — and vote them out. Now more than ever, we need a strong Congress to stand up to the president and protect our democracy. And we must learn from history to keep not just hoping but pushing for change.

 

ICE Wants to Go After Dissenters as well as Immigrants
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has long used the latest spy tech to pursue immigrants — but now the agency says it’s also targeting anti-ICE protesters and anyone who allegedly funds them. And the dangers are exacerbated by ICE spending some $25 million to supercharge its surveillance capabilities, signing new contracts to acquire social media monitoring systems, location tracking technology, remote hacking tools, and more. This is a “serious threat to free speech and privacy rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments,” Faiza Patel and Matthew Ruppert write. Read more
New York City Crime and Safety Update
The latest New York City Police Department data brings good news: New York remains one of the safest big cities in the country, and as of 2025, murders and shootings are at or near all-time lows. A Brennan Center analysis breaks down recent crime trends in the city, highlighting important gains for public safety as well as persistent challenges that need addressing. Read more
How Congress Can Tackle Tech
“The time is right for Congress to get its act together on technology policy,” Maya Kornberg writes, pointing to the influx of younger members who understand tech better than their predecessors — and the increased urgency of implementing guardrails around emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, that are rapidly reshaping society and the economy. Now Congress needs a dedicated tech committee to help it regulate tech effectively, Kornberg argues. Read more
Dangers of AI-Driven Policing
Policing is one area in which the unregulated use of artificial intelligence raises serious concerns. Police departments across the country have adopted new AI-driven tools that promise to help forecast crimes, identify threats, and resolve cases faster, but many of these data fusion systems are unproven. “Without robust safeguards, they risk generating inaccurate results, perpetuating bias, and undermining individual rights,” Rachel Levinson-Waldman and Ivey Dyson write. Read more

 

Coming Up
Tuesday, December 9, 2–3 p.m. ET
 
For a generation, presidential races were blowouts. Then came 2000. The last polls showed a dead heat. On election night, the networks called it prematurely for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it prematurely for George W. Bush, and retracted again.
 
Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, put an end to the recount and effectively declared Bush the winner. The fractured opinions were a maze of disagreements, and the justices on the winning side warned that the opinion should not be cited as precedent. Their reasoning flummoxed legal scholars, even those who agreed with the outcome.
 
Join us for a live virtual event to discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore. Did the case change the relationship between Americans and their elections, and between elections and the courts? Was it merely a symptom of broader changes in American politics? Or was the decision a historical anomaly with no lasting impact on American law and politics? RSVP today
Want to keep up with Brennan Center events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

 

News