When Congress Stops Checking the President

Published on LinkedIn: February 9, 2026

Presidential power is not most vulnerable when government is divided.

It is most vulnerable when one party controls everything.

The Constitution relies on Congress to serve as the primary institutional check on executive power. That safeguard works best when legislators treat their role as constitutional rather than partisan.

When the president’s party controls both houses of Congress, a subtle but serious risk emerges. Political loyalty can begin to displace institutional independence. Oversight weakens. Hard questions go unasked. Extraordinary presidential actions are justified as necessary, temporary, or politically unavoidable.

History shows this dynamic is not confined to any one party.

During the New Deal era, overwhelming congressional support for President Franklin Roosevelt initially muted resistance to his attempt to reshape the Supreme Court after it struck down key legislation. Although the plan ultimately failed, the episode revealed how unified government can delay constitutional pushback.

Decades later, after 9/11, congressional deference to President George W. Bush led to the rapid expansion of surveillance and detention authorities with limited debate or sustained oversight — at the very moment executive power was growing most dramatically.

These episodes share a common lesson. When Congress stops acting as an independent branch and starts acting as a presidential shield, the separation of powers begins to erode.

When personal loyalty replaces constitutional responsibility, executive overreach becomes easier — and the republic becomes more fragile.