Where Is Congress?

This is going to be about trade. I promise. But first, a short political science rant. Long-time readers of this column know that I spent 20 years on Capitol Hill, working for a Republican and a Democrat in the House and a Republican and a Democrat in the Senate, serving in the majority and the minority in both bodies. I was privileged to work there at a time (1973–1993) when the institution was in one of its periodic golden ages—thoughtful, knowledgeable, and motivated members and a leadership structure in both parties that tended to reinforce the center. Despite vigorous debate and disagreements, in the end, both parties frequently threw their extreme members on the left and right overboard in favor of a centrist compromise that would attract a comfortable majority of votes, and then everybody would go out for a drink afterwards.

It appears that the system has gone the way of the dodo, replaced by a quasi-parliamentary system in which the majority party brings forward only the measures it supports and pushes them through by pressuring its rank and file to adhere to the party line. They don’t call the vote counters “whips” for nothing. To be clear, both parties are guilty here.

That did not have immediate consequences when the ruling party had a healthy majority. It could afford to lose a few voters and still prevail. As those majorities narrowed, both bodies ended up being captured by small groups willing to throw up a roadblock to get what they wanted. That is best illustrated currently in the House of Representatives, where the current division is 218–214, with three vacancies. (One of the 218 is now an independent but caucuses with the Republicans.) That means two or three members in the majority party can determine the fate of legislation by withholding their votes, and the members who engage in that tactic rarely come from the center.

That leaves the leadership in a dilemma. If it is only willing to allow votes, it will win, but if it cannot consistently rally its troops, it is left with gridlock, which is what we are experiencing right now on numerous fronts.

Trade has been a bit of an exception to that, probably because both parties are divided on it. Republicans are torn between supporting the president and their traditional support for free trade and open markets, which is particularly strong in farm states. Democrats are torn between support for an open, rules-based trading system and those who believe that system has helped big companies at the expense of workers, although they all unite in criticizing Trump’s policy. If the Democrats regain the majority, that fissure will reappear.

The unusual result has been votes in both bodies that defy the trend described above. Both bodies voted narrowly to overturn Trump’s Canada tariffs, despite leadership’s support for the president and maneuvering to block the votes. Neither measure progressed further, and at this point, it is unnecessary, thanks to the Supreme Court doing Congress’s work for it. But the court’s action put the burden back on Congress. Its decision to invalidate tariffs made a firm statement that tariffs are Congress’s job, and if it delegates that power, it needs to be done specifically and with clear limits.

So, where is Congress? One would think that the two Canada votes were a sign of incipient activism, of Congress reclaiming the authority that rightfully belongs to it, and a small triumph for the center. Thus far, one who thinks that would be wrong, with the result that we are back in the dilemma described above. Leadership will resist votes on trade issues because it is not confident of the outcome. The fact that trade votes would be politically difficult for some members is no doubt a factor as well.

So, what to do? The solution may lie more in political science than in trade policy, but it involves courage, which seems to be sorely lacking right now. I propose to allow votes without being confident about their outcome and live with the results. That also means reinvigorating the committee system so that those who ostensibly have the expertise can work out the details in advance via committee debate and voting on amendments.

When a committee—in the case of most trade issues, Ways and Means in the House and Finance in the Senate—finishes its work, the bill should be brought to the floor, debated, voted on, and, if the other body also acts, reconciled in conference. In other words, bring actual democracy back to the system, a stark contrast, to cite one example of the House leadership’s efforts to prevent a vote on tariffs by changing its rules. The obvious place to begin is with the restoration of trade promotion authority, which would reaffirm the key role Congress plays in the development and implementation of trade policy.

This will not be an overnight success. It took several decades to get into the current mess, and it will take years to get out of it because it requires a change of attitude on the part of leaders in both parties, who will have to loosen their grip and let the rank and file do the work they were elected to do. I am reasonably confident, though, that if Congress can return to its roots and restore a system that most of the time has governed from the center, it will reestablish its Article I, Section 8 authority, which in recent years it has effectively ceded to the president.

Author’s Note: I retired from CSIS on March 29, 2026. I plan to continue writing this column and participating in the Trade Guys podcast, so please continue to read and listen. However, my CSIS email address will no longer be working, so if readers or podcast listeners want to contact me directly, they should do so at [email protected].

William A. Reinsch is senior adviser and Scholl Chair emeritus with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.