A pair of political scientists argue that the 119th Congress has enacted fewer laws in its first year than any administration in recent memory while ceding significant authority to President Trump through executive action, raising fundamental questions about legislative power in Washington.
David Wippman, emeritus president of Hamilton College, and Glenn Altschuler, emeritus professor of American studies at Cornell University, write in The Hill that past presidents with unified government used the opportunity to pursue major legislative agendas—Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. By contrast, they argue, this Congress has voluntarily surrendered power to an executive branch eager to claim it.
What the Right Is Saying
The source material does not include direct Republican responses to these specific arguments. However, Republicans have defended Trump's use of executive authority as consistent with past administrations and necessary for rapid governance. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed along party lines, represents the GOP's signature legislative achievement—a tax and spending package that includes permanent tax breaks, an increase in the state and local tax deduction cap, and reductions to clean energy credits.
Conservative defenders argue Trump won a clear electoral mandate in 2024 and voters expected action on border security, economic relief, and regulatory reform. House Speaker Mike Johnson has characterized Republican governance as delivering on campaign promises through available mechanisms, including reconciliation bills that bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold. Supporters contend executive action addresses urgent national emergencies at the border and in the economy more efficiently than prolonged legislative battles.
What the Left Is Saying
Wippman and Altschuler contend that Trump's 256 executive orders represent more than any president early in a term since FDR, encompassing freezes on federal grants, control over independent agencies, changes to federal election rules, reclassification of civil servants, travel bans, asylum restrictions, refugee caps, and attempts to end birthright citizenship. They note Trump has declared 10 national emergencies to justify actions that would ordinarily require congressional approval, including sweeping tariffs on allies and adversaries—despite the Constitution granting Congress power 'to lay and collect taxes.'
The authors argue Congress has failed to fulfill repeated Republican promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, pass a massive infrastructure program, reform drug pricing, or overhaul immigration. They cite Trump's dismissal of additional legislation after his tax bill: 'We don't need to pass any more bills.' The piece quotes conservative strategist Steve Bannon describing Congress as 'the Duma,' after Putin's rubber-stamp Russian legislature.
What the Numbers Show
According to Congress.gov statistics cited by Wippman and Altschuler: The 119th Congress enacted just 38 bills into law in 2025—the lowest number for a first year of any presidency in decades. By comparison, the 80th Congress, which President Truman famously mocked as the 'Do Nothing Congress,' passed 388 bills in its first year. The current House set a record for the fewest votes cast this century during the first session of a two-year Congress.
The longest government shutdown in U.S. history—43 days—occurred under this administration, triggered by disputes over healthcare subsidies funding. Approximately 600,000 federal employees were furloughed and 1 million worked without pay during that period. Trump issued 256 executive orders through his first months in office, exceeding the pace of recent predecessors. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes tax provisions disproportionately benefiting higher-income Americans, paired with cuts to Medicaid, clean energy credits, and federal food assistance programs.
The Bottom Line
The debate over congressional assertiveness versus executive deference reflects a constitutional tension that has persisted across administrations of both parties. Wippman and Altschuler argue the Founders intended Congress—the 'people's branch'—to be more powerful than the executive, and that this Congress risks undermining that design through inaction.
What happens next may depend on several factors: continued Republican unity around Trump's agenda, potential Supreme Court rulings on executive authority, midterm election pressures, and whether rank-and-file Republicans increasingly chafe at perceived marginalization of their institution. The authors note frustrated members of both parties have set a record for discharge petitions to force votes the Speaker refused to bring to the floor—suggesting internal tensions exist beneath surface party unity.
Regardless of partisan perspective, constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum have flagged separation-of-powers concerns as warranting serious attention. How this Congress responds to assertions of executive power may shape institutional precedents for decades.