Republicans in Congress have been working to pass major domestic legislation through federal budget processes. These include potential cuts to Medicaid and the extension of Trump’s tax cuts in 2017.

But even though passing budgets and developing tax policies is the work of Congress, most media are content to construct key elements of law because the legislation is not driven by Congress but by the president.

Therefore, the news media said the purpose of the bill is to "delivery Trump's agenda" or pass a "tax cut." Many even adopted President Donald Trump’s trademark name: his “Big and Beautiful Act.”

I am with Casey Burgat and Sorelle Wyckoff Gaynor, and I am the co-author of a textbook called "Congressional Interpretation: Representatives and Legislation in Branch One." In that book, it is important to emphasize the clear role of Congress as a prominent legislature of the federal government.

But Congress has blamed the president for his policy since Trump took office. This makes the media's attention to Trump no surprise. It is undeniable that Trump had a huge impact in the first 100 days of his tenure.

During this period, Congress has been reluctant to claim to be an equal branch of the government. Apart from decision-making, Congress is content to hand over many of its core constitutional powers to the executive branch. As a congressional expert who loves the institution and deeply respects its constitutional mandatory role, this abandonment of responsibility is difficult to observe.

However, the irrelevant path of Congress as a government agency did not begin in January 2025.

This is the result of decades of erosion, creating a political culture in which Congress (the first branch of government listed in the Constitution) is demoted to second-class status.

The Constitution puts Congress first

The 18th-century framework of the Constitution saw Congress as the basis of Republican governance, deliberately putting it in Article 1 to emphasize its primacy. Congress was appointed as a critical task for legislation and budgets, as controlling government finances was considered crucial to limit executive power and prevent abuse of offenders associated with the monarchy.

Plus, weak legislatures and empire executives are exactly what many founders fear. With legislative power in the hands of Congress, power will be dispersed at least among the various elected leaders from different parts of the country, each of whom will be jealous of their local interests.

But Trump's first 100 days put the founder's original vision on its head, making "First Branch" play the second fiddle.

Like the recent president, Trump has taken control of the president, the House and the Senate with his party. Yet despite the legislative power this management delta can bring, the Republican majority in Congress has nothing to do with Trump’s agenda.

Instead, Congress relied on Trump and the executive branch to change federal policies, and in many cases, completely reshape the federal government.

Trump has signed more than 140 executive orders, faster than any president since Franklin Roosevelt. The Republican Congress has no interest in retreating either. Trump has also actively reorganized, deducting or simply deleting entire institutions, such as the U.S. International Development Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Even if Congress has a clear constitutional authority over the executive branch’s budget, these actions are implemented. Likewise, even in recent budget negotiations, Congress has no interest in re-establishing its powers.

There are many reasons, no simple solution

Even so, Congress’ weakening did not begin with Trump. There is no culprit, but a series of factors that provide today’s invalid conference.

An important factor is the process that takes place in what is called political nationalization. American politics is increasingly focused on national issues, parties and figures, rather than local issues or individuals.

This shift raises the importance of the president as a symbol of the Kuomintang’s agenda and a practical leader. At the same time, it weakens the role of individual members of Congress, who are now more likely to step in rather than represent local interests.

As a result, voters focus more on presidential elections than congressional elections, giving the president greater influence and reducing the power of Congressional independence.

Congress polarizes on a party basis, and the less public trust is in opposing the legitimacy of the president. Instead, Congress fights back – sometimes as extreme as improvisation – so it can be written off rather than as principled or substantial as it is, but a larger partisan or political motive than ever.

Congress is also a co-conspirator in empowering itself. Especially in dealing with the polarized Congress, the president increasingly directed the ship to budget negotiations, which could lead to more local priorities – what Congress should represent – ​​being ignored.

But political science research does not stand at Congress itself as it did at the turn of the 21st century, but often at the turn of the 21st century, but rather shows that the presidential position of domestic policy increasingly determines Congress’s position on traditionally undivided policies, such as funding support for NASA. Congress’s position on procedural issues, such as raising debt ceilings or eliminating litigation, is also increasingly dependent on the bedrock principle, but rather on those who are occupying the White House.

In the field of foreign policy, Congress has almost abandoned its constitutional power to declare war and instead settled for the "authorization" of the military power the president wants to claim. These have allowed commanders to go to a wide range of latitudes in war power, which both Democratic and Republican presidents are happy to retain. They have used these Congressional approvals to participate in extended conflicts such as the wars in the early 1990s and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade later.

What has a weak Congress lost

Americans lost a lot when Congress handed over such a drastic power to the executive branch.

When members of Congress from all over the country abdicate, it is unlikely that the obvious local problems in their areas will be related to the power and resources that Congress may bring. Important local views on national issues were not represented in Congress.

Even members of the same political party represent regions with very different economies, demographics and geography. Members should keep this in mind when legislating these issues, but the president’s control over the process makes this difficult or even impossible.

Perhaps more importantly, a weak Congress with what historian Arthur Schlesinger calls “the President of the Empire” the secret of an irresponsible president who runs frantically without the oversight provided by the constitution and examines the powers the founder offers through its representatives through the first branch of the government.