Congress does not need to be oppositional to have influence.
10.03.2026 20:13
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Congress does not need to be oppositional to have influence.
War powers is, and has historically always been, the weakest front on which Congress contests presidents but that's hardly a universal account of its power. And voting not to limit military operations is not the same as doing nothing!
Fascinating article to write after Congress recently rebuked the President's budget, undoes reorganizations and RIFs in several agencies, and recently forced a cabinet official to be fired. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
New “Congress Two Beers In” podcast- @joshhuder.bsky.social , @mattglassman312.bsky.social and I talk appropriations, the SAVE Act, and tariffs. Chadha critique ahead…
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Fascinating analysis of congressional elections. The conventional wisdom predicts fewer seat swings in 2026 due to nationalization and polarization. This study demonstrates large seat swings remain possible even in times of calcified partisan elections. centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/...
Mike Johnson's historically narrow majority isn't the only, or even the biggest, problem he's faced as Speaker. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...
NEW: Senior Fellow @joshhuder.bsky.social writes about the challenges to Mike Johnson's speakership: logistical, political, personal and structural gai.georgetown.edu/nobody-knows...
This is patently absurd but if it were true, he's suggesting AI is a critical and possibly unrecoverable blow to the U.S. economy, deficit, debt, and more... which isn't a great argument.
There are reasons for the partisan requirements (i.e. Mike Johnson's interest in remaining speaker). But that is also a problem rules changes could address.
Partisan floor demands have derailed several committees' work this Congress. There's a decent argument to be made that with less stringent partisan requirements/demands for floor consideration, the institution wouldn't be as bottled up. www.notus.org/congress/hou...
On the latest DDHQ podcast, we explored the chaotic U.S. House of Representatives.
Guest Joshua Huder highlighted how internal conflicts within both parties have made it harder to manage the House — currently Speaker Mike Johnson's problem.
Watch here: decisiondeskhq.substack.com/p/house-of-r...
Agree. Still a tough pill to swallow given [gestures wildly].
Pelosi, Hoyer, Nadler, Schakowsky, Velazquez, Davis, Doggett.
More interesting story is the retirements of several long-serving Democrats this year. We’re seeing a generational turnover among House Democrats who were once the backbone of the party.
Congress is old but that is far more interesting to legislative politics than 2-3% who might return.
Whether they believe the language won’t prevent impoundments, or it’s not worth a shutdown fight again, or futile without a House or Senate majority, it’s clear they’ve backed away from many of their original demands.
This process looks more like Trump 1.0 when Congress ignored steep cuts proposed by the admin. However, Democrats appear to have capitulated more this time, allowing sizable cuts and jettisoning language restricting impoundments or RIFs.
And as a result, we've lost some ability to forge the strange coalitions that historically protected American democracy when it came under threat.
Tolerance is arguably the most fundamental liberal principle and it is too often missing in today's political dialogue.
Today is not the first time fascist and illiberal political movements threatened American politics. But it does seem like this generation of politicians and actors have lost some capacity for tolerance, even when opposing ideologies are broadly pro-democratic.
This piece nicely reiterates the imperatives of inclusion for democracy to endure. Though, I admit, I'm saddened tolerance has fallen so far from mainstream (lowercase-l) liberalism that pieces like this are necessary.
ryandenos.substack.com/p/the-future...
This ties in nicely with @dandrezner.bsky.social piece this morning. His acts may have historical parallels but Trump's acts are on a different scale with different intended effects.
Both important reads. danieldrezner.substack.com/p/anarchy-is...
Important @jonathanbernstein.bsky.social piece. Sometimes it feels like Trump's actions are just extensions of previous presidential acts. But Jonathan makes an important point that Trump's acts are often far worse. goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/worse-than...
My thoughts on the state of House GOP leadership, with data on discharge petitions and links to good stuff from @mattglassman312.bsky.social @joshhuder.bsky.social @sarahbinder.bsky.social & others.
My take on why Mike Johnson's speakership is one of the most fraught in recent and not so recent memory. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...
Julia Azari: the impeachments of Trump and Johnson, and the near-impeachment of Nixon “have a number of strong and striking parallels. The factor I focus on is race: how each of these presidents follow one who breaks with the confines of the racial status quo.” open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...
The NDAA carries language restricting the Hegseth's travel budget until DoD provides reports and documents on a variety of issues.
As @jamiedupree.bsky.social notes, this language isn't that uncommon, particularly when committees lose patience with agencies. But it often flies under the radar.
wrote about the boat strikes, and people’s skepticism that Hegseth will face consequences.
the thing is…the bipartisan congressional pushback is already a consequence. it damages hegseth personally and politically and may restrain policy.
www.everythingishorrible.net/p/will-hegse...
Blocking the transmission of legislation is among the worst abuses of power by any Speaker in House history. It's become very common under Johnson.
Good point. We see that on Dems side. There's a generational change going on there. But Republican conference is 1) much less experienced/younger, and 2) particularly dysfunctional. A House career is a dead end on the R side.
1st: This would be among the most dramatic events in US history.
2nd: I'm very skeptical resignations force a transfer of power.
3rd: If discontent is this widespread why has House done almost nothing to push back?
4th: Johnson... no bueno.
Likely hyperbole but not a good look regardless.
