The Publius Project

The Publius Project Midterm Report Card

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 20:45:09 GMT

Let’s be honest; midterm elections usually just turn into cheap personality contests with most people. But they shouldn’t be. They’re supposed to serve a more important and more basic purpose: an audit.

A good old fashioned job performance review.

Before I get to it, I need to be crystal clear on something.

This isn’t a partisan hit piece and it isn’t a victory lap for the GOP.

I’m an Independent taking an straight-up look at the folks currently running the show for us. If the Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress, I’d be holding their feet to the exact same fire.

If you remember back in 2024, Republicans didn’t simply ask us to reject Democrats. They promoted a platform with 20 specific promises. And they told us that if we put Donald Trump back in the White House and give them full control of Congress, they’d deliver on every single one.

The voters responded by giving them just what they asked for.

And now that we’ve essentially hit the halfway point, I thought it was time to pop the hood, dig into everything and see how they’ve done.

For me, this isn’t whether you love or hate Trump; he’s just one guy. And it isn’t about rooting for Team Red or Team Blue either. And – it’s not even about whether you agree with the policies they pushed.

To me, the question is so much easier:

Did they actually do what they said they would do?

What do the receipts say?

Where did the administration and Congress succeed or fall flat?

Where did they miss the mark entirely and where did they actually deliver.

As you read each section, you notice a pattern. I’m keeping it simple with these four basic steps:

The Promise: sets the bar.
The Actions: show what actually to passed or signed.
The Record: brings the measurable numbers.
The Review: weighs everything the GOP said they would do against what they actually did along with my own take on the evidence.

As always, no slogans, no team jerseys and no moving the goalposts. And most importantly: facts and evidence over emotion.

Just the promises, the record and the receipts.

Here we go.

Subscribe now

1. Border Security & Immigration

The Promise

Republicans put border security right at the very top of their 2024 platform with two main headlines:

“SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION.”
“CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”

They didn’t mince words either about how they’d do it. They would finish the wall, kill “catch-and-release,” bring back “Remain in Mexico,” supercharge Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and launch an unprecedented deportation push.

So that gives us two straight-forward questions:

Did Republicans actually slash illegal crossings at the southern border?
Did they carry out the mass-deportation program they promised?

While those sound like the same question, their answers tell two very different stories.

The Actions

The administration didn’t mess around. On Day 1 (January 20th, 2025), President Trump declared a national emergency, deployed military support to the border, restarted wall construction, and officially brought back “Remain in Mexico.” That same day, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also shut down the CBP One app appointment-scheduling feature.

And Congress backed them up quickly. By late January, they’d already passed the Laken Riley Act to mandate detention for illegals charged with theft-related offenses. Then came the big hammer: Public Law 119-21 (aka the Big Beautiful Bill or BBB), which poured $46.55 billion into border walls and infrastructure and pumped tens of billions more into extra staffing and massive ICE detention capability expansion.

On paper, the GOP threw everything including the kitchen sink at the border. Whatever you might think of the actual policies, there’s no debate about how fast they moved to turn promises into action.

But action is only half of the test.

What did those policies actually produce?

The Record

The Border

Illegal crossings dropped by numbers we haven’t seen in about 50 years.

In FY2024, Border Patrol logged over 1.5 million illegal crossings along the southwest border.
In FY2025, that figure cratered to 237,565 – an 84% drop in a single year, making it the lowest annual total since 1970.

And those low numbers are holding up to the release of this publication with monthly apprehensions staying at decades-low levels.

But there’s a catch; the drop didn’t start on Inauguration Day. Border crossings were already coming down during the final months of the Biden administration after its mid-2024 policy shifts.

What changed after Trump took office was the floor dropping out completely. Crossings fell dramatically further and stayed down. The fair take? Republicans shouldn’t get all the credit for starting the downward trend, but they deserve real credit for slamming the brakes on crossings and holding the line at record lows.

Deportations and Enforcement

The deportation side of the promise gets much more complicated.

ICE reported roughly 271,000 removals in FY2024.
In FY2025, total returns and removals climbed to more than 440,000, with roughly 167,000 involving people with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
Interior immigration arrests also increased sharply during 2026.

These numbers show a massive surge in enforcement. But there’s a big gap between stepping up deportations and actually pulling off the “largest deportation operation in American history.”

The administration set its own internal target of 1 million returns and removals a year. The FY2025 total fell way short of that benchmark, and final FY2026 data isn’t out yet.

So while the mass-deportation engine is definitely running louder, the evidence isn’t there to declare a historical record broken just yet.

The Review

Where they delivered

When it comes to the border wall and border crossings, Republicans have a rock-solid case. Sure, crossings were already starting to dip before Trump took office, so giving the GOP 100% of the credit isn’t honest. But after January 2025, the decline steepened dramatically. Southwest apprehensions hit a 50-year low and stayed there.

That’s a big, measurable win tied directly to a core promise. GOP supporters can fairly argue that tough policies, expanded detention, and ending catch-and-release created a massive deterrent effect.

Where they fell short (or where critics have a point)

Securing the border and executing mass deportations aren’t the same thing. ICE activity bumped up significantly, but the administration hasn’t proven it’s achieved the largest deportation operation in history – especially against it’s own 1-million-a-year goal.

Critics can also fairly point out that the administration rode a wave already moving in the right direction and that some of their aggressive tactics – like expanding detention and sweeping executive interpretations – have sparked big constitutional headaches in federal courts.

My Take

These two promises need different grades:

On border security, it’s one of the clearest GOP wins in this entire report. The crossing numbers didn’t just drop, they cratered.
On mass deportation, it’s a work in progress. Enforcement has clearly scaled up, but the receipts don’t back up the claim that history’s been made.

Publius Project Bottom line

Slashing illegal border crossings? Promise largely kept.
Pulling off the largest deportation operation in history? Serious progress, but not yet delivered.

That’s one promise down. Fourteen to go.

The full Midterm Report Card examines inflation and affordability, energy, taxes, the national debt, tariffs and manufacturing, war and military strength, civil liberties, Social Security and Medicare, education, crime, elections and more - using the same standard throughout: the promise, the actions, the record and the receipts.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

The People’s Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 10:01:36 GMT

Week Ending October 3, 2026

Most of us only hear about Congress through screaming cable news segments or social media clips designed to make us mad before we’re informed. The People’s Ledger is different. It’s a quick, clear look at what lawmakers are actually debating, funding, and changing – minus the political theater.

Subscribe now

Congress Shuts It Down – But Not Before A Reminder That a Majority Isn’t Always Enough

And that, as they say, is a wrap.

The House skipped town mid-September, but the Senate stayed through Wednesday night before holding a quick pro-forma check-in on Thursday. Then they left town for the remainder of October – not scheduled to return until November 9^th.

But before locking the dead bolt, Senators squeezed in one last burst of legislation, confirmations and procedural votes.

And two of those votes show us a textbook look at how Washington really functions:

53 senators voted to advance a congressional stock-trading bill. It failed.
57 senators voted to advance a ratepayer-protection bill. It also failed.

Welcome to the United States Senate – where 60 is usually the only number that matters.

1. The Big One – The Senate Joins the House on Election Recess

What happened

The Senate spent its final three days in D.C. moving a surprisingly broad collection of bills and nominations.

Collegiate Athletics: On Monday, the Senate gave final approval to the Protect College Sports Act (77–22) after weeks of debate over athlete compensation, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, transfers, and health protections. The bill now heads to the House, which isn’t around to vote on it.
Cabinet Confirmation: Confirmed Keith Sonderling as Secretary of Labor in a tight 47–41 vote.
Public Safety & Health: Passed the Safe Access to Cash Act and the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act.
Diplomatic & Local Bills: Approved a batch of U.S. ambassador nominations and cleared several land, infrastructure, and public-safety measures by unanimous consent.

Then the Senate closed up shop. The Senate held its final pro-forma session on Thursday morning with the next regular session scheduled for November 9^th.

What changed

Both chambers are now effectively off the field until after the elections. The House’s last vote was recorded on September 16^th and the Senate’s was September 30^th. Technically, periodic pro-forma sessions will keep the lights on so the chambers remain legally open, but no action work will happen.

Why it matters

There’s nothing inherently wrong with Congress taking an election-season state work period. Representatives and senators should spend time meeting with the people they represent.

But both houses left a massive stack of unfinished business on the desk:

Unfinished Funding: Fiscal Year 2027 started October 1^st without a full-year budget in place.

Stranded Legislation: Measures passed by one chamber – like the Senate’s college sports bill – are completely frozen until the other chamber returns.

Open Nominations: Dozens of executive and judicial nominations remain unconfirmed.

Winners & Losers

Likely Winners: Incumbents running for reelection now get uninterrupted time in their states and districts and campaigns now have a fixed pre-election record to argue about.
Likely Losers: Legislation caught in limbo, and taxpayers watching lawmakers leave town without finishing their work.

What to Watch For Next

Nothing, unless Congress is unexpectedly recalled. Which may be the most honest “What to Watch” section I’ve written yet.

2. Quietly Moving Bills

The Senate’s Last-Minute Cleanup

While headlines focused on campaigns, the Senate quietly cleared two noteworthy bills before leaving.

S.3798 – Safe Access to Cash Act

What It Does: Expands federal criminal law to cover robberies and violent acts targeting workers servicing or transporting cash to network-connected ATMs, even if the machine isn’t physically attached to a bank building.
Why It Matters: As ATMs have expanded into standalone kiosks, convenience stores, and retail centers, criminal targets have shifted outside traditional bank vaults. This bill closes a loophole in federal jurisdiction.

S.3315 - Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act

What It Does: Mandates formal coordination between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to protect hospitals and health providers from cyberattacks.
Why It Matters: Ransomware attacks against regional hospital systems have increasingly crippled medical care across the country. This legislation focuses on protecting critical healthcare infrastructure before a crisis hits.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending

Happy New Fiscal Year. Congress Still Hasn’t Finished Funding It.

October 1 marked the beginning of Fiscal Year 2027.

And once again, Congress started a new fiscal year without finishing the previous one.

Our government is instead operating under the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, which generally keeps existing programs operating at prior-year rates through December 11^th.

The law specifically directs agencies to take only the limited funding actions necessary to continue ongoing programs while Congress decides final funding levels.

Why it matters

A Continuing Resolution (CR) avoids the immediate chaos of a government shutdown, but it puts governance into a holding pattern. Strategic planning gets stalled, defense and domestic agencies operate on auto-pilot, and the real decisions get kicked into a high-pressure post-election “lame-duck” session.

Expect another high-stakes showdown – and likely another stopgap extension – when lawmakers return in November.

Winners & Losers

Likely Winners: Federal agencies and employees avoided a shutdown. And Congress bought itself more time.
Likely Losers: The American people, long-term planners, budget discipline and anyone hoping Congress would finish one fiscal year’s appropriations before beginning the next one.

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

Nothing.

Pro-forma sessions in both chambers with members not scheduled to return until after the elections.

So for the next several weeks:

No House floor agenda.

No normal Senate floor agenda.

Election season.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power

53–47 Can Still Mean “No”

This past week gave Americans a quick class in Senate procedural mechanics.

On Wednesday, the Senate considered whether to move forward on H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, which would restrict individual stock ownership and trading by members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children.

The vote was 53-47 in favor, but the bill still failed to move forward.

Shortly after, senators voted on the Ratepayer Protection Act, a House-passed bill (417–3) that requires massive electricity users – like commercial AI data centers – to cover the cost of electrical grid upgrades required to power them, rather than shifting those costs onto local households.

The vote was 57–43 in favor. It also failed to move forward.

You might be wondering why?

Translating Washington’s Procedural Gymnastics

Both votes were cloture motions on a motion to proceed. And that sentence is exactly the sort of Washington language I started the Ledger to translate.

In plain English: senators weren’t voting on final passage of the bills. They were voting on whether to end debate and allow the bills onto the floor for consideration.

Under Senate Rule XXII (the filibuster rule), it takes 60 votes to end debate and move most legislation forward.

A Key Distinction: A 53–47 vote wasn’t a rejection of banning congressional stock trading, and a 57–43 vote wasn’t a rejection of protecting utility ratepayers. A clear majority voted “yes” on both. But under Senate rules, a simple majority isn’t enough to break a filibuster.

The Filibuster Debate

The Case for It: Supporters argue the 60-vote threshold forces bipartisan compromise, protects the minority party’s voice, and prevents rapid, swinging policy shifts every time control of the Senate flips.

The Case Against It: Critics argue it creates an unconstitutional supermajority requirement for standard legislation, enabling a minority of senators to block policies supported by a clear majority of the public and the chamber.

These bills aren’t dead, they’re stalled. Senate leadership can bring them back up during the lame-duck session, but they will still need to find the votes to reach 60.

6. Publius Take

The Ledger Closes – The Record Remains.

For the past several weeks, I’ve examined the congressional calendar with a critical eye.

Members should go home. They should hold town halls, explain their decisions to constituents, and face tough questions from people who disagree with them. Representative government doesn’t mean hiding in a committee room in Washington every day of the year.

But now the pre-election legislative record is officially locked, and we need to look at where things stand:

Congress started FY2027 without passing a full budget, kicking the deadline to December 11^th.

American forces remain engaged in military actions against Iran without an explicit statutory authorization from Congress.

Bipartisan popular measures – from stock-trading bans to energy grid protections – sit stalled behind procedural rules.

Over the next few weeks, candidates from both parties will hit the trail with polished speeches about what they plan to do if we give them another term.

That’s fine. Campaigns are usually about the future.

But representative governance is about the record.

When candidates ask for your vote, don’t just evaluate their promises. Look at the ledger:

What bills did they actually vote on?
Which major deadlines were met, and which were kicked down the road?
Where did Congress stand up as an independent branch of government, and where did it surrender its power to the executive branch?

Those aren’t political questions. They’re Article I questions.

Congress is the branch of government closest to the people because its members have to stand in front of those people every two years and justify their record.

The Ledger is closed until after the election.

The record stays open.

Subscribe now

7. The Bottom Line

The House left weeks ago and the Senate finished its cleanup work on Wednesday. Now, Washington is officially quiet until November 9^th.

Congress leaves behind an unfinished budget, stalled legislation, and major unresolved constitutional questions over war and spending.

As lawmakers head home to ask for another term, voters don’t need to guess where Congress stands.

Open the record, look at the votes, and decide for yourself whether the job was done.

8. Sources & Further Reading

U.S. Senate — Floor Activity, September 28, 2026.
U.S. Senate — Floor Activity, September 30, 2026.
U.S. Senate — 119th Congress Cloture Motions.
U.S. Senate Daily Press — October recess and November 9 return schedule.
U.S. House Clerk — 2026 Roll-Call Votes.
GovInfo — H.R. 7008, Stop Insider Trading Act.
CRS — Proposals to Limit Member of Congress Stock Trading.
GovInfo — H.R. 9340, Ratepayer Protection Act.
GovInfo — S. 3798, Safe Access to Cash Act.
U.S. Senate / GovInfo — S. 3315, Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act.
GovInfo — Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027.

Episode 16: Judgment, Not Rule

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 10:01:32 GMT

The Defiant Citizen - A Publius Project Podcast: A return to first principles, where self-governance, responsibility, and the role of the citizen take center stage.

Subscribe now

The Supreme Court is the highest court in America.

But it isn’t the highest authority in our system.

The Constitution is.

That distinction is at the center of the newest episode of The Defiant Citizen, based on Restoration Paper No. 15: The Constitutional Judiciary - Judgment, Not Rule.

The Founders wanted an independent judiciary, and for good reason. Judges have to be able to tell Congress that a law is unconstitutional, tell a president that he has exceeded his authority, and protect individuals when government violates their rights.

But independence and supremacy aren’t the same thing.

In this episode, I take a plain-English look at the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy, why Article III was designed the way it was, and what Alexander Hamilton meant when he described the judiciary as possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

I also look at something that tends to get overlooked in these debates:

The Supreme Court has overturned the Supreme Court.

Justices have revisited constitutional decisions made by earlier Courts and concluded that those decisions were wrong. That alone should remind us that a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution and the Constitution itself aren’t the same thing.

This episode also explores the history behind judicial independence, the English Star Chamber and colonial experience, nationwide injunctions, Trump v. CASA, Supreme Court tenure, judicial ethics, congressional responsibility under Article III, and what a properly limited but still powerful judiciary might look like.

This isn’t an argument for weaker courts.

It’s an argument for courts strong enough to defend liberty, independent enough to withstand political pressure, and restrained enough to recognize the limits of their own authority.

Because the judiciary was given an enormously important responsibility.

Judgment. Not rule.

Listen Here

You can also read the full companion essay, Restoration Paper No. 15: The Constitutional Judiciary - Judgment, Not Rule, here:

The People’s Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:02:44 GMT

Week Ending September 26, 2026

Subscribe now

The House Is Gone. The Senate Worked. And Washington Is Racing the Clock.

The final weeks of September is Washington is always a little strange and this year is no different.

The House checked out over a week ago and won’t be back until after the midterms. Now somebody’s always there to “keep the lights on” through “pro forma” sessions, but nothing’s getting done on that side of the Capitol.

But, the Senate was still in town and they actually did some work last week.

They weren’t frantically trying to finish everything before the fiscal year ends this coming Wednesday, but they did log some real legislative work: confirming a federal judge, passing a couple of bipartisan security bills, advancing that major college sports package, and holding another dramatic, razor-thin vote on presidential war powers regarding the Iran war.

Meanwhile, outside of the Capitol, another end of year D.C. tradition is fast underway and has been for at least a month now.

Remember, the federal government fiscal year ends Wednesday, September 30^th and all across the executive branch, agencies and offices holding what is known as “one-year-money” are staring down a deadline. Spend any unused funds before midnight or lose them back to the Treasury.

Welcome to the annual September spending dump.

1. The Big Story: One Chamber Left Standing

What happened

With the house gone, the Senate was the only game left in town. But, believe it or not, they actually did accomplish a few things before they pack their bags.

Judicial Confirmation: Confirmed Angela Colmenero, 50–47, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
College Athletics: Voted 77–23 to advance an updated version of the Protect College Sports Act, closing debate and clearing the path toward a final vote.
Iran War Powers Showdown: In the week’s most consequential vote, the Senate came within a single vote of passing H. Con. Res. 89, a concurrent resolution telling the President to end unauthorized hostilities in Iran.

And then came the week’s biggest constitutional vote:

The War Powers Reality Check

The vote failed 49-50.

Four Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul and Thom Tillis) joined Democrats and Independents in voting to reassert congressional authority. Democratic senator John Fetterman voted against it, while Senator Angela Alsobrooks didn’t vote.

But, even if it had passed, it wouldn’t have carried the force of law because it was a concurrent resolution, meaning it doesn’t get sent to the President for signature or veto. Following the Supreme Court’s INS v Chadha decision, such resolutions can’t legally compel the executive branch to pull back troops.

So, all it really means is the vote was essentially for show. If Congress really wanted to stop the war, they would pass a binding join resolution, deny formal authorization, or use its Article I power of the purse to cut off funding.

Why it matters

The Senate’s work this week just makes the House’s absence more noticeable. Americans need to know their government is working for them. They don’t need to see hundreds of laws being passed to verify that. Sometimes doing oversight is the job, or voting down something could also be the job at that time and that’s fine.

Debating presidential war powers matters vastly more than passing a dozen commemorative resolutions and at least for one week, the Senate treated its constitutional authority role seriously.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Americans to some extent, because the Senate actually did its job this week. Additional winners include supporters of the Protect College Sports Act which appears to have wide support for the final vote, scheduled for Monday, September 28^th. And it’s probably fair to say that President Trump and the Executive Branch won because the Senate declined to direct an end to the war with Iran.

Likely Losers: Anyone who wants more restraint put on presidential war powers; Americans to some extent again, but this time because the House wasn’t in session doing their job.

What to Watch For Next

The Senate returns Monday with the first vote scheduled to be the final passage of the Protect College Sports Act. After that, there are only a few days left before the Senate heads out of town also.

2. The Bills That Didn’t Make the Headlines

While national headlines focused on the United Nations General Assembly and campaign slogans, the Senate actually managed to pass a few significant bills:

S. 1962 – Secure Space Act of 2026

What It Does: Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from granting satellite licenses, earth-station access, or U.S. market authorization to companies linked to entities on the federal government’s security risk “Covered List.”
Why It Matters: If a foreign firm has already been flagged as a national security risk on earth, this bill ensures they can’t bypass those restrictions by operating through satellite communications networks overhead.

S. 3404 – Satellite Cybersecurity Act

What It Does: Directs federal agencies to assess and support the cybersecurity posture of commercial satellite systems.
Why It Matters: Commercial satellites carry vast amounts of financial, weather, navigation, and defense traffic. Orbiting infrastructure is no longer science fiction, it’s a critical national vulnerability.

H.R. 1721 – Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act

What It Does: Directs the Commerce Department to identify critical infrastructure components reliant on foreign supply chains and evaluate whether domestic manufacturing is economically viable.
Why It Matters: In Washington, “studying whether the government should do something” is almost always the first step toward the government actually doing it. Keep an eye on where this goes.

Other Notable Passed Measures: The Senate also cleared targeted bills addressing aviation mental health, romance scams, illegal fishing enforcement, and tribal land rights.

Subscribe now

3. Welcome to the September Spending Sprint

If you’ve been around the federal government long enough, you know what late September feels like.

Contract options are suddenly exercised. Purchase requests fly across desks. Money gets shuffled from account to account as offices scramble to buy whatever they can before midnight on September 30.

We call it the “Use It or Lose It” sprint. It isn’t just political rhetoric—the Government Accountability Office (GAO) uses the exact same phrase to warn about the wasteful spending incentives built into the federal budget.

Obligation vs. Outlay: How It Actually Works

To understand the year-end rush, you have to understand the difference between spending money and obligating it:

When “one-year money” expires on September 30th, an agency doesn’t have to cash every check before midnight. They just have to obligate the funds by signing a contract. Once obligated, they have up to five years to actually pay out the cash.

If they fail to obligate that money by September 30, the authority to use those funds disappears entirely. Hence: use it or lose it.

The Broken Incentive System

This mechanism creates a deeply flawed financial structure:

In Private Business: If a manager accomplishes a mission for $90 million instead of the budgeted $100 million, they save $10 million. They are rewarded for efficiency.
In the Federal Government: If a manager saves $10 million, that money isn’t celebrated. It becomes a crisis. The immediate fear is: “If we give this back, Congress will cut our budget by $10 million next year.”

Instead of asking “Does the taxpayer really need this?”, bureaucrats are forced to ask “How do we get this obligated before midnight?”

To be clear: not every September purchase is wasteful. Many agencies hold back money due to funding delays caused by Continuing Resolutions earlier in the year. But the underlying incentive structure actively rewards spending every last cent and penalizes fiscal restraint.

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

The House

Nothing Substantive. The House will hold brief pro forma sessions to satisfy constitutional requirements, but no votes are scheduled until after the midterm elections.

The Senate

S. 4668 – Protect College Sports Act: What is expected to the be the final vote is scheduled for Monday evening around 5:30 p.m. EDT. If passed, the bill creates nationwide standards for athlete compensation, transfers, agent conduct, and healthcare. But, since the House is out, the bill will sit in limbo until November at the earliest.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power

49–50: The Senate Comes Within One Vote of the Iran Question

Thursday’s vote on H. Con. Res. 89 shows a profound institutional divide on Capitol Hill.

Article I of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war and fund military operations. Yet, for decades now, Congress continues to defer that power to the President.

So, by failing to pass a formal authorization or force a withdrawal, Congress leaves the executive branch in complete control of sustained foreign military actions.

6. Publius Take: Stop Punishing Government for Saving Money.

I know, it’s crazy. But seriously, it is so backwards the way Washington approaches taxpayer money.

Politicians spend all year giving speeches about government waste, but they cling to a system that forces federal employees to spend every dime by September 30^th or face budget cuts next year.

Whether you believe the federal government should spend $1 trillion or $10 trillion, every taxpayer should agree on one basic principle:

The government should never spend money simply because a date on the calendar is about to expire.

Congress writes the laws. They control the purse strings. If the budget incentives are broken, it has the sole power to fix them:

Allow agencies to carry over a portion of saved operational funds into the next fiscal year.
Reward departments that return unused funds with operational flexibility rather than budget cuts.
Stop forcing managers to operate under perpetual Continuing Resolutions that compress a year’s worth of planning into a chaotic three-week September rush.

Doing the job means ensuring the government has what it needs to function – and not a single penny more.

7. The Bottom Line

The House’s lights are on, but nobody’s working. The Senate stayed in town, confirmed a federal judge, passed security bills, and brought war powers to a historic, razor-thin vote.

Give the Senate credit for actually legislating.

Now, Washington enters its favorite annual spectacle. The clock is ticking down to September 30, and billions of dollars in taxpayer authority are about to expire.

As the fiscal year closes, the metric shouldn’t just be how much Washington spent. The real question is:

How much did they spend because the public needed it – and how much did they spend just to beat the clock?

That’s the ledger every voter should be watching.

8. Sources & Further Reading

U.S. Senate — Floor Activity, September 22–24, 2026.
U.S. Senate — Roll Call 244, H. Con. Res. 89, September 24, 2026.
U.S. Senate — Protect College Sports Act floor schedule and votes.
U.S. House Republican Cloakroom — House schedule for September 28–October 2.
GAO — Budget Issues: Budget Uncertainty and Disruptions Affect Timing of Agency Spending.
GAO — A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process.
U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. §§1552–1553 — expiration, closing and availability of fixed-period appropriations.
GovInfo — Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027.
GovInfo — Secure Space Act and Satellite Cybersecurity Act.
GovInfo — Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act.

The People’s Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:02:10 GMT

Week Ending September 19, 2026

Subscribe now

The House Went Home, But the Work Remains

Congress has a strange way of making the case that it deserves another term in office.

Their plan?

Stop doing the job, go back home, and ask the voters for a promotion.

That’s where Washington stands this week.

Now, to be fair, some context is required. The House cast its final votes on Wednesday, September 16, after Speaker Mike Johnson canceled Thursday’s session and sent members packing for a seven-week election recess. Leadership had already slashed two weeks from the September calendar, meaning House members aren’t expected back for regular business until after the November midterms.

Johnson’s explanation was simple: the House had finished its work, and members needed to head home to make their case to voters.

But that doesn’t mean lawmakers are taking a seven-week vacation. Much of that time will be spent on legitimate district work – meeting constituents, handling local issues, and hearing from voters.

And yes, plenty of it will be spent campaigning.

But here’s the catch: Most House members aren’t even facing competitive races.

As of early September, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report classified only 37 of the nation’s 435 House districts as toss-ups or lean-party seats. That’s roughly 1 out of every 12 seats. The remaining 90% of races are effectively safe bets for one party or the other.

That doesn’t mean safe-seat members don’t campaign because they do. They raise money, support colleagues, and help turn out local voters. But it completely undermines the argument that the House had to shut down national business for nearly two months.

Meanwhile, the actual work in Washington sits unfinished:

Congress hasn’t passed regular annual funding bills, relying instead on a Continuing Resolution (CR) that kicks the budget deadline to December 11^th.
Constitutional questions over presidential war powers remain unresolved.
Major financial and tech legislation remains completely stalled.

The Senate, for its part, stays in D.C. through October 2^nd before taking its own recess. So Congress didn’t completely vanish. But the central issue remains:

Why did the House decide to stop working when it hasn’t finished what the law requires?

The Contractor Test: Imagine you hired a mechanic to fix your broken car. He completes a third of the repairs, puts down his tools, and says: “Before I finish this job, I need you to sign a contract hiring me for the next two years.”

Your response would be simple: “How about you finish the job I already paid you to do before asking for another contract?”

Asking voters for another term is the bedrock of democracy. But asking for a renewal when you left the core job unfinished?

That takes some serious nerve.

1. The Big Story: The House Exits for Campaign Season

What Happened

The House voted last week, passed several key bills, and wrapped up its pre-election schedule a day early.

Final votes included:

220–204 to direct the President to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran.
262–159 to approve the Senate’s Russia and Iran sanctions package.
352–72 to establish a statutory National Fraud Enforcement Division within the DOJ.
217–207 for the PROOF Act, expanding federal oversight of state-administered benefit programs.
415–9 for the Water Resources Development Act.
401–14 for the Retire Through Ownership Act.

By Wednesday night, the House gavel fell, and members headed for the airport.

What Changed

Leadership shortened the September legislative calendar by roughly two weeks and canceled the final Thursday session. House members will now be away from regular floor votes until after the midterm elections.

The Senate is taking a different path. Official schedules keep senators in Washington through October 2^nd, returning for legislative business tomorrow, September 22^nd. Their state-work period won’t begin until October 5^th.

Why It Matters

Productivity in Congress isn’t measured by floor attendance alone. The problem isn’t that members leave D.C. – it’s what they leave behind.

Lame-Duck Budgeting: Because Congress funded the government through a temporary CR ending December 11^th, final spending decisions are pushed into a post-election “lame-duck” session. That means lawmakers who lost their elections – or are retiring – will vote on massive spending bills with zero accountability to voters.
Unresolved War Powers: The executive branch continues military actions without explicit, updated statutory authority from Capitol Hill.
Stalled Business: Key oversight measures – including proposed impeachment proceedings against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and attempts to force additional Epstein-related disclosures – were simply shelved until winter.

Winners & Losers

Likely Winners: House members in tight races who get weeks of uninterrupted campaign time, and House leadership, which locks down the floor agenda to prevent awkward pre-election votes.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers and federal agencies facing another year without a predictable budget, and voters who are asked to cast ballots before Congress finishes its most fundamental duties.

2. Quietly Moving Bills

While the campaign trail dominated the headlines, the House did move several notable pieces of legislation before leaving town:

H.R. 9576 – National Fraud Enforcement Division Act

Passed House 352–72 | Referred to Senate Calendar
What It Does: Formally establishes a National Fraud Enforcement Division inside the Department of Justice dedicated to investigating fraud in federal programs.
Why It Matters: An executive administration can reorganize internal departments at will, but when Congress creates an office by statute, it defines its authority in law. This is Congress exercising its Article I muscle rather than letting the White House build permanent entities on its own.

H.R. 10326 – PROOF Act

Passed House 217–207 | Referred to Senate Judiciary
What It Does: Requires states to provide data to the Attorney General when investigating fraud in federally funded programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF.
Why It Matters: Safeguarding taxpayer dollars against theft is essential. However, forcing states to hand over vast amounts of citizen data to federal law enforcement raises serious questions about federalism and privacy. The narrow vote margin reflects that deep policy tension.

H.R. 9497 – Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2026

Passed House 415–9 | Sent to Senate
What It Does: Authorizes Army Corps of Engineers projects for ports, harbors, flood control, and water infrastructure.
The Reality Check: Authorization is only step one—it creates the framework. A project doesn’t get built until Congress passes actual appropriations to fund it. That key distinction often gets lost when politicians boast about the dollar figures they “delivered” home.

3. Money & Spending: Moving the Crisis to December

Congress avoided another October government shutdown by passing a CR on September 2^nd. It keeps federal agencies running through December 11^th at an annualized rate of $1.701 trillion.

Total Spending Authorized (Annualized): $1.701 Trillion

Deficit (First 11 Months of FY2026): $2.000 Trillion

New Funding Deadline: December 11, 2026

The Real Fiscal Picture

The CBO estimates the federal government ran a $2.0 trillion deficit through the first 11 months of FY2026. While the raw number appears $6 billion smaller than last year, calendar shifts mask the truth: after accounting for timing distortions, this year’s deficit is actually $82 billion larger than last year’s.

The Problem With Governing by CR

A CR is designed to buy a few days for final negotiations. Instead, it has become Washington’s default operating system.

By kicking the deadline to December 11^th, Congress guarantees another self-created emergency. Members will return after the election, rush through a multi-thousand-page “omnibus” spending bill, and demand an up-or-down vote before anyone has time to read it.

That isn’t governance – it’s management by artificial crisis.

4. On the Floor This Week

The House

Nothing. The House floor is closed for the election recess.

The Senate

The Senate returns Tuesday, September 22, with several major items on the docket:

Protect College Sports Act (S. 4668): The Senate voted 77–22 to take up this bill, which aims to establish federal standards for college athlete compensation, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, and athlete protections.
Judicial Confirmations: A cloture vote is scheduled for Angela Veronica Colmenero’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Iran War Powers (H. Con. Res. 89): Senate leadership committed to a vote by October 2 on an Iran War Powers resolution passed earlier by the House.

5. Civil Liberties & War Powers

On September 15^th, the House voted 220–204 on H. Con. Res. 93, directing the President to pull U.S. forces out of hostilities against Iran unless Congress issues an explicit declaration of war or specific military authorization.

The Legal Catch

Like many recent war powers measures, H. Con. Res. 93 relies on Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which uses a concurrent resolution to order troop withdrawals.

The problem? Concurrent resolutions are never sent to the President to be signed or vetoed.

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha, the Congressional Research Service has repeatedly noted that concurrent resolutions lack binding legal force over the executive branch. To alter legal authority, Congress must pass a bill or joint resolution that goes to the President’s desk (Presentment Clause).

While a House vote sends a strong political signal, Congress continues to rely on procedural shortcuts rather than using its true constitutional powers: passing binding laws or cutting off funding for unauthorized military actions.

6. Publius Take: Hold Them Accountable

It is easy to throw our hands up and say Congress did nothing before packing their bags. But that’s not entirely accurate - or fair.

The House did pass meaningful legislation on fraud enforcement, water infrastructure, and foreign sanctions. And the Senate is still in session, confirming judges and tackling higher-education policy.

Those actions require acknowledgment.

But look at the core statutory duties Congress walked away from:

Did they pass regular annual spending bills on time? No. (Congress hasn’t passed all 12 budget bills on time since 1997.)
Did they adopt a federal budget resolution on schedule? No. Statutory law sets an April 15 deadline; the House didn’t pass its version until July, and the Senate still hasn’t acted.
Did they pass specific authorization for military action in Iran? No. Hostilities continue without explicit statutory approval.
Did they fix the structural budget deficit? No. The government is running a $2 trillion deficit while spending over $1 trillion a year just paying interest on existing debt.

Instead of finishing these core duties, the House packed up early to ask voters for another two-year contract.

Remember the contractor rule: when someone asks to be rehired before finishing the job they were already paid to do, you don’t look at their promotional flyers. You look at the car sitting unfinished in the driveway.

7. The Bottom Line

The House didn’t leave Washington empty-handed. It passed real bills, took a major war powers vote, and approved sweeping foreign sanctions.

Then it shut down floor operations for seven weeks.

The Senate will stay through October 2, but the broader picture is undeniable:

The House decided it had done enough legislating for the season, even though the basic work of governing remains undone.

As voters prepare to cast their ballots, they shouldn’t evaluate Congress on campaign promises or political speeches. Open the ledger, look at what got done - and what got left behind - and decide for yourself.

8. Sources & Further Reading

Restoration Paper No. 15

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 11:02:18 GMT

Phase II: The Founder’s Framework

To My Fellow Americans,

Our courts were created to interpret the law, resolve legal disputes, protect individual rights, and enforce the Constitution’s boundaries. And, for the most part, that’s the job. It’s pretty straightforward like that.

What they weren’t built to do is govern the country. We already have two elected branches for that. But somewhere along the way, that distinction has gotten pretty murky.

Today, we follow Supreme Court nominations with the kind of intensity we once reserved for presidential elections. Advocacy groups spend years looking for the right plaintiff, the right judge, and the right courthouse to turn a political goal into a constitutional ruling.

Our presidents push executive power until a court tells them they’ve gone too far. And members of Congress duck difficult constitutional questions knowing there’s a good chance the courts will eventually settle the issue for them.

And before anyone starts yelling about political parties, let’s be clear on this point: both major parties play the same game. They condemn “judicial activism” when they lose and praise the “rule of law” when they win. The unspoken rule seems to be that judges should stay in their lane unless they can deliver something “our side” couldn’t get through Congress or the normal political process.

As you might imagine, that’s not a healthy way to run a constitutional republic. When more and more political questions are settled through litigation because our elected officials simply avoid them, self-government starts giving way to government by lawsuit.

Our Founders wanted an independent judiciary because they knew elected officials couldn’t always be trusted to restrain themselves. They knew that fear, anger, faction, political pressure, and plain old ambition can push presidents and legislatures beyond the limits of the Constitution. They knew any judicial system they created had to be independent enough to tell Congress it had exceeded its authority, strong enough to tell a president he couldn’t simply invent a power, and courageous enough to protect an individual whose rights had been trampled by a popular majority.

But independence was never meant to mean supremacy.

The judiciary wasn’t supposed to be an unelected council with the final word on every political, moral, economic, and social dispute in American life. Judges were given authority over cases, not ownership of the Constitution. They were given judgment, not the power to rule.

This paper seeks to restore that line.

Subscribe now

The Quiet Branch

Most government power is pretty loud.

Congress taxes, spends, borrows, passes laws, and creates programs that reach into our everyday lives. The president commands the military, directs the Executive Branch, appoints officials, issues orders, and dominates the news cycle.

The judiciary is quieter, or at least it’s supposed to be.

Judges don’t command armies. They don’t collect taxes. They don’t run federal agencies. Their power usually arrives in the form of written opinions, often long, technical, and mostly unread by the people whose lives are the most affected by them.

That quietness can make judicial power look smaller than it really is.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch because it possessed “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” It had neither the sword of the executive nor the purse of the legislature. Courts had to wait for disputes to come to them, decide them according to law, and then depend on the Executive Branch to carry out their judgments.

I don’t believe Hamilton was saying the courts were unimportant. He was explaining why they were supposed to be limited.

Courts aren’t supposed to roam the country looking for laws or policies they dislike, and they aren’t supposed to offer general advice about how America should be governed. Their job is to hear real disputes between real parties, apply the law, and issue judgments that resolve them.

Let’s compare that with the role the courts often play today.

A single federal district judge can halt a major national policy. A five-justice Supreme Court majority can resolve a question Congress has avoided for decades. A single Supreme Court vacancy can become a national political emergency because one appointment may influence constitutional law for a generation.

I’ll submit that some of that power is absolutely necessary. An unconstitutional law doesn’t become constitutional because Congress passed it. An unlawful executive order doesn’t become lawful because the president calls it an emergency. And a state government doesn’t get to violate someone’s constitutional rights just because a majority approves.

But when nearly every major national dispute eventually becomes a lawsuit, something’s broken.

Our courts are increasingly being asked to settle political questions that elected officials have refused to settle themselves. And Congress and our presidents have found that arrangement pretty convenient because it lets them avoid responsibility for some of the hardest decisions.

That’s not good for the courts, and it isn’t good for self-government.

Why the Founders Built Article III

Like the other branches I’ve discussed in Phase II of the Restoration Papers, the Judicial Branch wasn’t created out of thin air. The Founders drew on lived experience under British rule, centuries of English law, political philosophy, and warnings from ancient republics.

They asked a basic question of themselves: how do we build courts strong enough to protect liberty without letting them become another source of unchecked power?

Lessons From the Ancient World

The ancient republics didn’t give the Founders a judicial system they could simply copy. Greece and Rome had very different political and legal institutions. What they did offer, however, were lessons about human nature.

The Founders read histories filled with faction, political revenge, popular passion, ambition, instability, and the collapse of republican government. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 9 about the small republics of Greece and Italy, where faction and disorder repeatedly pushed governments between instability and tyranny.

The lesson wasn’t that self-government was impossible. It was that self-government needed structure. A republic can’t survive for long if temporary majorities can turn legal institutions against their enemies. And it can’t survive if public anger replaces due process or if officials can bend the law to whatever result they want in a particular moment.

The law has to mean something even when following it is inconvenient.

The English Inheritance and Colonial Experience

Our legal tradition came much more directly from England. We inherited common-law courts, jury trials, habeas corpus, legal precedent, rules of procedure, and the principle that government should operate through known laws rather than rulers’ personal commands.

But English history also brought warnings, most famously the Court of Star Chamber. It began as a way to deal with powerful offenders who might otherwise evade ordinary justice. Over time, however, it became closely tied to the Crown’s political power.

That transformation offered a lesson the Founders understood well: a court that ultimately serves the ruler isn’t truly independent.

It’s another arm of executive power, dressed up in legal language.

Their colonial experience made that concern even more personal. The Declaration of Independence specifically accused King George III of making judges dependent on his will “for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

The Founders didn’t want an American president who could fire judges for ruling against him. They didn’t want Congress threatening a judge’s livelihood because members disliked a decision. A judge who has to worry about losing a job every time the government loses a case isn’t independent.

That’s why Article III protects federal judges in two important ways: they hold office during “good Behaviour,” and their compensation can’t be reduced while they remain in office.

The traditional understanding of those protections has been lifetime tenure unless a judge resigns, retires, dies, or is impeached and removed. Judges must be able to rule against the political branches without fearing retaliation.

The Founders wanted independence without dependence on anyone else. They also rejected the idea of parliamentary supremacy inherited from Britain. America wouldn’t have a sovereign Congress, a sovereign president, or a sovereign court.

The Constitution would be supreme.

Subscribe now

What Article III Actually Created

Article III created one Supreme Court and allowed Congress to establish lower federal courts. It gave the federal judiciary authority over specified “cases” and “controversies.” It didn’t give judges a general license to supervise every political dispute in America.

Courts generally don’t issue advisory opinions. A president can’t simply ask the Supreme Court whether a policy he might adopt next year would be constitutional. Congress can’t send a bill over before passage and ask the justices to approve it. A real legal dispute must involve parties with an actual stake in the outcome.

That requirement isn’t just lawyerly procedure. It helps define the judicial role. The judiciary is supposed to be a constitutional safeguard, not the first branch we consult every time the country has a political disagreement.

Judicial Review Isn’t Judicial Supremacy

Many of our arguments about the courts get confused because we treat two different ideas as the same: judicial review and judicial supremacy. They are not the same.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is straightforward. When a court decides a legitimate case and an ordinary law conflicts with the Constitution, the court must follow the Constitution. If Congress passes a statute that violates the Constitution, a judge can’t faithfully apply both. The Constitution is the higher law.

Hamilton defended that principle in Federalist No. 78. Chief Justice John Marshall later explained it in Marbury v. Madison. A written Constitution wouldn’t mean much if courts were required to enforce ordinary statutes that contradicted it. That is judicial review, and it belongs in our constitutional system.

Judicial Supremacy

Judicial supremacy goes further. It’s the idea that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution isn’t simply controlling in the case before it, but becomes the final constitutional answer for the rest of the government as well. Under that view, once the Court has spoken, Congress, the president, the states, and everyone else are expected to treat that interpretation as controlling unless the Court later changes its mind or the Constitution is amended

That doesn’t automatically follow from judicial review.

A lawful, final court judgment binds the parties before the court. Government officials can’t simply ignore an order because they dislike the outcome or disagree with the reasoning. If courts could issue judgments that nobody had to obey, judicial review would be meaningless, and constitutional rights would become little more than words on paper.

Lower courts must follow higher-court decisions, and Supreme Court decisions inevitably shape future cases. But none of that means every constitutional interpretation announced by the Supreme Court becomes the Constitution itself.

Every branch has constitutional responsibilities. Members of Congress swear an oath to support the Constitution. The president swears to preserve, protect, and defend it. Federal judges swear to uphold it. Each has a responsibility to take that oath seriously instead of outsourcing constitutional judgment to somebody else.

Congress shouldn’t pass laws its members believe are unconstitutional and then shrug, expecting the courts to clean up the mess later. Presidents shouldn’t push their authority as far as possible and treat a federal lawsuit as the only meaningful boundary on executive power. And states shouldn’t violate constitutional rights until a judge finally orders them to stop.

The courts have an essential role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution, but they aren’t the only institution responsible for it. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, but it’s not the highest authority in our constitutional system.

The Constitution is.

Judgment and Political Will

Hamilton’s distinction between judgment and will remains one of the clearest ways to understand the proper role of the judiciary.

Legislatures exercise political will. They weigh competing interests, make compromises, allocate money, impose taxes, create programs, and decide public policy.

The Executive Branch carries out those laws. It administers programs, enforces the law, conducts foreign relations, and commands the military within its constitutional authority.

Judges have a different job. They examine constitutional text, statutes, facts, legal arguments, and relevant precedents. They determine what the law requires in the dispute before them.

That work isn’t simple or mechanical.

The Constitution was written before radio, airplanes, smartphones, digital banking, social media, cloud storage, and modern surveillance. Applying enduring constitutional principles to new circumstances requires real judgment.

The Fourth Amendment can protect digital information even though the Founders never held a smartphone. The First Amendment can protect speech on the internet even though the Founders only knew printing presses, pamphlets, newspapers, taverns, churches, and public meetings.

Applying an old principle to a new set of facts isn’t the same as inventing a new principle.

A judge should be able to explain where the rule comes from. What constitutional or statutory text governs? What did that language mean when it was lawfully adopted? What precedent applies? How do the facts fit the rule?

The reasoning shouldn’t start with the result the judge believes would make society kinder, safer, more modern, more traditional, more equal, or more efficient. Those might be worthy goals or terrible goals, but citizens and their elected representatives choose which policy path the country should pursue.

When judges decide what the law ought to be instead of what the law is, they move from judgment into political will. The robe they wear doesn’t change the nature of the power being exercised.

Cases, Controversies, and Federalism

Courts work best when they have real parties, real facts, opposing arguments, an identifiable injury, and a remedy connected to that injury. That structure is a baseline safeguard that keeps judges focused on resolving legal disputes instead of issuing broad pronouncements about how the country should be governed.

Today, individual lawsuits have increasingly become vehicles for national policymaking. A plaintiff files suit in what they believe is a favorable district. Their chosen judge issues an injunction. And suddenly, a federal policy affecting millions of people is halted across the country, including for people who were never parties to the case.

Now, admittedly, broader relief is sometimes necessary. If a policy injures thousands of people in the exact same way, it may be unrealistic or unfair to require each of them to file a separate lawsuit. Properly certified class actions and representative cases remain important tools for protecting rights. But the other side of the problem matters too: a single district judge shouldn’t automatically possess the power to suspend national policy everywhere before other courts have considered the question.

The Supreme Court confronted this issue in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025). The Court concluded that universal injunctions – orders extending relief to non-parties – likely exceed the traditional equitable authority Congress granted federal courts, except where broader relief is necessary to protect the actual plaintiffs before the court. The Court addressed the remedy’s reach, not the underlying policy.

That points toward a sensible rule: judicial remedies should ordinarily be tied to the injury proven by the parties before the court. Broader relief should remain available when genuinely needed – such as certified class actions, indivisible harms, or express statutory authorization – but a local courtroom shouldn’t automatically become national policy headquarters.

That’s where federalism matters. The Constitution didn’t eliminate state governments or state courts. Most criminal prosecutions, family disputes, property cases, and contract matters are still primary issues of state law.

At the same time, federalism isn’t a permission slip for states to violate rights. The Reconstruction Amendments altered the relationship between citizens, the states, and the federal government. A restrained federal judiciary must enforce due process, equal protection, voting protections, and every other constitutional guarantee that applies against state governments.

Dividing governing power between Washington and the states protects liberty. Dividing basic constitutional rights according to ZIP code doesn’t.

Subscribe now

The Path to Restoration

Restoring the constitutional judiciary doesn’t mean abolishing judicial review, subordinating judges to presidents, or authorizing Congress to violate rights. It means rebuilding structural boundaries around judicial power while preserving the independence necessary for courts to do their job.

1. Constitutionally Fix the Supreme Court at Nine Justices

Federal law already sets the Supreme Court at one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The problem is that another Congress can change that number through ordinary legislation. If we want to take expansion or contraction of the Court off the table as a partisan weapon, the number nine should be fixed in the Constitution, ideally as part of the same amendment establishing eighteen-year terms.

2. Establish Fixed, Non-Renewable 18-Year Supreme Court Terms

Active service on the Supreme Court shouldn’t depend on mortality, strategic retirement, or political timing. The cleanest reform is a constitutional amendment creating staggered, non-renewable 18-year terms of active Supreme Court service.

Eighteen years is long enough to insulate a justice from ordinary political pressure without requiring reelection or renomination. Staggered appointments would make the process predictable and dramatically lower the political stakes of unexpected vacancies.

The amendment should include a neutral transition schedule established in advance, with one active Supreme Court seat turning over every two years, beginning with the longest-tenured active justice. Justices leaving active Supreme Court service would retain their Article III status and could serve in retirement as provided by the amendment and implementing law. The transition should establish the new system, not manufacture an immediate partisan majority.

3. Enforce Clear Ethics, Disclosure, and Recusal Standards

Judicial independence can’t mean judges are accountable only to themselves. While the Supreme Court’s adoption of a Code of Conduct in 2023 was a positive step, standards require objective administration.

Congress should establish clear, prospective disclosure and recusal rules applying across the federal judiciary. These rules must address financial conflicts, gifts, and circumstances where impartiality might reasonably be questioned. They must apply equally to all judges, regardless of appointing party, and operate as neutral safeguards rather than political weapons.

4. Tailor Judicial Remedies to Proven Harm

Federal courts should continue moving away from universal, nationwide injunctions issued by single district judges. The baseline rule must be direct: the remedy must fit the injury the parties prove in the courtroom. Universal relief should remain an exceptional tool limited to properly certified class actions, indivisible harms, or explicit legislative authorization. Additionally, major constitutional challenges to federal policy should receive expedited appellate review to prevent national paralysis.

5. Reclaim Congressional Article III Responsibilities

Congress frequently criticizes judicial overreach while ignoring its own constitutional tools. Under Article III, Congress possesses clear authority to structure the lower courts and regulate appellate jurisdiction. Congress should exercise this power to reform random case assignments, curb judge-shopping, establish expedited review channels, and clarify remedial boundaries. Jurisdiction should never be manipulated to shield unconstitutional acts, but Congress must take active responsibility for the system it created.

6. Restore Multi-Branch Constitutional Duty

Judicial restraint can’t succeed if Congress and the president treat courts as the sole guardians of constitutional boundaries. Members of Congress must identify the constitutional authority for legislation before voting. Likewise, Presidents must ground executive claims in constitutional or statutory authority. A representative who votes for a bill he believes is unconstitutional fails his duty, regardless of whether the Supreme Court ever reviews the statute.

Subscribe now

The Necessary Guardrails

Any serious proposal to reform the judiciary will draw criticism. If we are serious about restoration rather than partisan advantage, we must address these concerns directly.

Addressing Concerns About Structural Integrity

Critics will argue that term limits or jurisdictional reforms represent court-packing or legislative overreach. That would be true if these measures were applied selectively to alter current ideological majorities. That’s precisely why structural reform must occur prospectively through a constitutional amendment and neutral statutory rules.

Congress’s Article III powers over jurisdiction and structure must remain general, prospective, and bound by due process. Congress can’t close every judicial forum to valid constitutional claims or dictate outcomes in pending cases. The objective isn’t to replace judicial supremacy with legislative supremacy; it’s to restore constitutional balance.

Addressing Concerns About Rights and Remedies

Others worry that limiting nationwide injunctions or enforcing judicial restraint will leave citizens unprotected against illegal policies or state overreach.

Restraint doesn’t mean abandoning constitutional guarantees. Class actions, representative suits, and expedited appeals ensure that widespread illegal policies can still be halted efficiently. Furthermore, restoring federalism doesn’t weaken the Reconstruction Amendments. Federal courts maintain full authority to strike down state actions that violate due process, equal protection, or religious liberty.

Restraint simply requires anchoring rights in constitutional text rather than judicial policy preferences. A strong court must tell a majority when the Constitution forbids its actions, but it must also tell itself when the Constitution leaves a decision to the people.

Addressing Concerns About Modern Application and Executive Power

Skeptics suggest that adhering to original public meaning freezes the law in 1789, or that restraining the judiciary will create an imperial executive.

Original public meaning doesn’t restrict principles to eighteenth-century technology. Enduring principles apply naturally to modern realities. Fourth Amendment principles can apply to data stored in the cloud just as they apply to papers and effects in the physical world, and the First Amendment protects speech communicated digitally just as it protects speech distributed through a printing press. When the underlying principles themselves need changing, Article V provides the amendment process.

Furthermore, judicial reform doesn’t operate in isolation. As part of Phase II of the Restoration Papers, judicial restraint sits alongside a revitalized Congress reclaiming its legislative role and a disciplined executive returning to its enforcement mandate. A restrained judiciary remains fully empowered to strike down unlawful executive actions; it simply refrains from assuming the executive’s policy duties.

Judgment, Not Rule

Any reform of the judiciary should pass four simple tests:

Does it preserve the ability of judges to decide cases free from political coercion?
Does it protect individuals from unconstitutional government action?
Does it prevent judges from exercising powers that belong to the legislative or executive branches?
Does it return constitutional responsibility to Congress, the president, the states, and the people instead of simply moving power from one institution to another?

A judiciary that bows to presidents or legislatures isn’t a safeguard of liberty. But a system in which nine unelected justices are treated as final policymakers on many of the major questions in American life isn’t self-government either.

The Founders created an independent judiciary because liberty couldn’t survive if judges served at politicians’ pleasure. But they didn’t create a council of legal rulers standing above the republic either. They intentionally didn’t give judges command of the military, control of the purse, or authority to write laws. They were given judicial power, exercised through actual cases and controversies, with a duty to follow the Constitution as the highest law.

The courts must be strong enough to protect individuals from government power. They must be independent enough to issue unpopular judgments. They must be restrained enough to recognize when the Constitution leaves a question to the people and their elected institutions.

And they must remember that wearing a robe doesn’t make anyone sovereign.

The Constitution belongs to the American people.

The judiciary’s proper role is judgment.

Not rule.

In Liberty
Gary Mullins (Libertas)

Sources & Further Reading

Founding Documents and Constitutional Text

The Constitution of the United States.
Particularly Article III, establishing the federal judiciary; Article V, establishing the amendment process; Article VI, including the Supremacy Clause; and the Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Declaration of Independence (1776).
Especially the grievance against King George III for making judges dependent upon his will “for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” (1787).
Hamilton’s discussion of faction, instability, and the experience of the ancient republics of Greece and Italy.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” (1788).
The principal Founding-era defense of judicial independence and judicial review. Hamilton describes the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch, possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Major Supreme Court Decisions

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Chief Justice John Marshall’s foundational explanation of judicial review and the principle that the Constitution takes precedence over an ordinary statute when the two conflict.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
An important modern statement of the Supreme Court’s authority in constitutional interpretation and a central case in the debate over the distinction between judicial review and judicial supremacy.

Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025).
The Supreme Court’s examination of universal or nationwide injunctions and the traditional principle that equitable relief ordinarily should not extend further than necessary to provide complete relief to the parties before the court.

Federal Statutes and Judicial Structure

28 U.S.C. § 1, “Number of Justices; Quorum.”
Current federal law establishing the Supreme Court as one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

28 U.S.C. § 294, “Assignment of Retired Justices or Judges to Active Duty.”
Provides for the continued judicial service of retired Supreme Court justices and other federal judges under specified circumstances.

28 U.S.C. § 455, “Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge.”
Federal law governing judicial recusal and conflicts of interest, including circumstances in which a justice or judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Judicial Ethics

Supreme Court of the United States, Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (November 13, 2023).
The Supreme Court’s formal statement of ethical principles concerning impartiality, outside activities, financial interests, recusal, and preservation of public confidence in the judiciary.

Congressional Research and Constitutional Interpretation

Constitution Annotated, Congressional Research Service and Library of Congress.
Particularly the following essays:

“Historical Background on Judicial Review”
“Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review”
“Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction”
“Overview of the Supremacy Clause”
Essays concerning Article III’s Good Behavior Clause, judicial independence, federal jurisdiction, and the Cases or Controversies requirement

English Legal History

The National Archives of the United Kingdom, “Court of Star Chamber Records, 1485–1642.”
Historical overview of the Star Chamber, its origins, procedures, jurisdiction, relationship to the King’s Council, and eventual abolition in 1641.

J. A. Guy, The Court of Star Chamber and Its Records to the Reign of Elizabeth I. Public Record Office Handbook No. 21. London: HMSO, 1984.
A detailed history of the development and operation of the Star Chamber.

K. J. Kesselring and Natalie Mears, eds., Star Chamber Matters: An Early Modern Court and Its Records. London: University of London Press, 2021.
Modern scholarship examining the Star Chamber, its operation, surviving records, and historical reputation.

Additional Historical and Constitutional Reading

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769).
One of the most influential explanations of English common law available to the Founding generation and an important source for understanding the legal tradition inherited by early Americans.

Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Book XI, Chapter 6 (1748).
A major influence on the Founders’ understanding of separated governmental powers and the dangers of combining legislative, executive, and judicial authority.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, edited by Max Farrand.
The principal documentary collection of the Constitutional Convention debates and proposals, including discussions surrounding the creation and structure of the federal judiciary.

The People’s Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:00:53 GMT

Week Ending September 12, 2026

Subscribe now

The Calm Before the Storm

Congress was quiet this week, but the rest of the government wasn’t.

There were zero House roll-call votes, and the Senate only held brief, empty sessions to keep the lights on. But while lawmakers were off the field, interest on the national debt kept compounding, executive agencies kept flexing their power, and leadership was quietly setting the stage for a chaotic return.

There will be a massive pile of work waiting on their desks Monday morning.

1. The Big Story: Chaos is Coming

What Happened

Between September 7th and September 13th, the House didn’t record a single vote. The Senate met twice in “pro forma” sessions – quick procedural check-ins that last a few minutes – without taking up any legislation.

I expect that calm will end on Monday.

When lawmakers return, the House faces a packed schedule including: sanctions on Russia and Iran, a vote to make the Justice Department’s anti-fraud team permanent, attempts to overturn California environmental rules, and a potential showdown over presidential war powers in Iran. Over in the Senate, members will immediately take up a landmark bill to regulate cryptocurrency.

What Changed

Congress didn’t pass laws this week, but leadership completely reshaped the upcoming agenda:

War Powers in Iran: House leadership put H. Con. Res. 93 on the schedule. It would order the President to pull U.S. forces out of hostilities with Iran unless Congress explicitly approves them.
Foreign Sanctions: The House will review a Senate-passed package targeting Russia and extending sanctions on Iran.
Crypto Regulations: The Senate will vote Tuesday to cut off debate on H.R. 3633 (the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act). This procedural step – called cloture – requires 60 votes to stop a filibuster and move the bill toward a final decision.

Why It Matters

When Congress goes on recess, the federal government doesn’t pause. Presidents keep issuing orders, agencies keep writing rules, and the Treasury keeps borrowing money. Wars don’t freeze just because politicians go home.

What happens after a recess shows us whether Congress intends to act as an independent branch of government or just keep reacting to decisions made by the White House.

Winners & Losers

Likely Winners: Congressional leaders holding the floor agenda; lawmakers demanding a public record on war powers; crypto firms seeking clear legal ground; and the White House, which faces less oversight when Congress isn’t in session.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers watching interest costs mount; fiscal hawks seeing deficits rise without debate; and institutional clarity, especially if Congress uses non-binding resolutions instead of actual laws to challenge executive authority.

2. Quietly Moving Bills

H.R. 7834 – Safe Cloud Storage Act

The Problem: When law enforcement investigates child sexual abuse cases, they often hire private cloud providers to host and analyze digital evidence. Under current law, those private companies face legal liability just for possessing that material – even when assisting the police.
The Solution: Reported out by the House Judiciary Committee on September 8th, H.R. 7834 gives approved contractors limited protection from civil and criminal liability while handling evidence under government contract. Crucially, that protection disappears if the company acts recklessly, negligently, or outside its contract scope.
The Catch: The bill requires vendors to meet strict National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) security standards, enforce end-to-end encryption, and undergo annual independent audits.
What’s Next: Scheduled for an expedited vote under “suspension of the rules” – a process reserved for bills expected to pass with a two-thirds majority.

H.R. 3633 – Digital Asset Market Clarity Act

The Goal: Divide federal oversight of cryptocurrency between the SEC (for securities) and the CFTC (for commodities), while placing legal guardrails around potential Federal Reserve digital currencies.
Why It Matters: For years, crypto has operated in a legal gray area where regulators enforce rules through individual lawsuits rather than clear laws. Whether you love or hate crypto, elected lawmakers – not administrative agencies – should set the ground rules for multi-trillion-dollar financial markets.
What’s Next: Tuesday afternoon’s procedural vote will reveal whether the Senate has the 60 votes needed to move the bill forward.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending: Washington’s $2 Trillion Deficit

While Congress was away, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dropped a sobering reminder on September 9th: the federal deficit reached $1.967 trillion through the first 11 months of fiscal year 2026.

Federal Revenues (Oct-Aug): $4.845 Trillion

Federal Spending (Oct-Aug): $6.812 Trillion

------------------------------------------------

11-Month Operating Deficit: $1.967 Trillion

The Real Story Behind the Numbers

On paper, the CBO notes this deficit is $6 billion smaller than this point last year. But that’s an accounting illusion caused by holiday calendar shifts in 2025. Once adjusted, this year’s deficit is actually $82 billion worse than the same period last year.

The Most Alarming Number in Washington

Through August, the U.S. government spent $1.052 trillion just paying net interest on the national debt.

To put that in perspective:

National Defense Spending: ~$833 Billion
Net Interest on Debt: ~$1.052 Trillion

We are now spending significantly more servicing past debts than funding the entire U.S. military. Net interest costs are up 12% year-over-year.

The Tariff Reality Check: Tariff receipts were only up about $1 billion compared to last year. Why? The federal government has paid out roughly $110 billion in refunds following the Supreme Court’s February ruling against certain executive tariffs.

4. Coming to the Floor (Week of Sept 14)

H. Con. Res. 93 (Iran War Powers): Directs the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress issues a formal declaration of war or specific authorization.
Senate Amendments to H.R. 5334 (Sanctions Package): A massive foreign policy bill targeting Russia and extending the Iran Sanctions Act for five years.
- Legislative Shell Game: H.R. 5334 originally started as a tax deduction bill for early-childhood educators before the Senate stripped the text and replaced it with foreign sanctions. It’s standard procedure in Capitol Hill, but it obscures tracking for ordinary citizens.
H.R. 9576 (National Fraud Enforcement Division Act): Formally creates a statutory, Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General to head DOJ’s fraud enforcement. Writing it into law ensures a future administration cannot quietly dismantle it.
H.J. Res. 210 & 213 (EPA Rules): Resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to strike down EPA approvals for California’s strict emissions rules on commercial ships and harbor craft.

Subscribe now

5. Constitutional Power: The War-Powers Flaw

H. Con. Res. 93 raises a vital question: Who decides when America goes to war?

Article I gives Congress the sole power to declare war and fund the military. Article II makes the President Commander-in-Chief. Over decades, presidents of both parties have expanded executive power to launch military actions without asking Capitol Hill first.

H. Con. Res. 93 attempts to rein in the Executive using Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which allows Congress to force a troop withdrawal using a concurrent resolution.

The Legal Problem

A concurrent resolution passes the House and Senate, but it never goes to the President’s desk to be signed or vetoed.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Chadha that Congress can’t alter legal rights or executive duties without passing a proper bill and presenting it to the President (Presentment Clause). As a result, constitutional legal experts widely agree that Section 5(c) is unenforceable.

If Congress wants to force an end to military conflict, it can’t rely on non-binding shortcuts. It must use its binding constitutional levers: pass joint resolutions, place conditions on military appropriations, or cut off funding entirely.

6. Publius Take: Act Like a Real Branch of Government

A single unifying thread runs through this week’s news: Congress keeps acting like a spectator watching the government instead of the branch that runs it.

If the nation is engaged in armed conflict with foreign nations, Congress should vote clearly on it. No procedural games, no stretching 20-year-old authorizations, and no relying on unconstitutional resolutions. Vote yes or vote no and own the decision.
If the Justice Department needs a national fraud division, Congress should pass a law defining its scope and budget – not leave it to executive decrees.
If lawmakers want sweeping foreign sanctions, debate them out in the open under a clear title – don’t hide foreign policy inside an old tax bill for preschool teachers.

And then there is the debt.

A nation spending over $1 trillion a year just paying interest can’t fix its budget with soundbites and slogans. That number represents decades of reckless choices by both parties. Congress holds the power of the purse. It’s time it started acting like it.

Subscribe now

7. The Bottom Line

Congress didn’t vote this week, but the nation didn’t stand still.

The CBO issued another warning that America’s fiscal path is unsustainable. Essential child-protection evidence rules moved forward. Senate leaders prepared for a showdown over the future of cryptocurrency. And when lawmakers return Monday, they face a historic question:

Will Congress reclaim its constitutional authority over war and spending, or keep sitting on the sidelines?

Next week will be much louder. The real test is whether Congress makes actual policy – or just noise.

8. Sources & Further Reading

The Housing Affordability Trap

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:15:30 GMT

To My Fellow Americans,

There’s something happening across our entire country that doesn’t take a pollster, an economist, or a politician to explain. All we have to do is talk to a young couple trying to buy their first home, or ask parents if they think their kids will ever be able to afford one.

Or talk to someone who bought a house ten years ago. They look at what it’s supposedly worth today and wonder who on earth could afford to buy it from them.

Housing has drifted completely out of reach for ordinary families – and we have to start figuring out why.

A recent report by OpenTheBooks (OTB) gives us a good place to start. Looking at the decade from 2015 to 2024, researchers tracked state-level household income growth against home price increases using Census Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency data.

Their finding was evident: Home prices grew faster than median household incomes in all 50 states. And in 48 of those states, that gap was in the double digits.

That headline alone should wake everyone up. But what makes the data even more eye-opening is where some of the biggest gaps occurred: Idaho, Florida, Utah, Tennessee, and Arizona.

These aren’t the states people would usually point to when talking about heavy regulation or skyrocketing costs. Many of them built their reputations on low taxes, growth, and business-friendly policies. That right there destroys the easy “red state vs. blue state” talking point.

Subscribe now

Migration Is Part of the Story – Not the Whole Story

Now, a lot of people will see those numbers and say: “Well, of course houses got expensive in Florida, Idaho, and Tennessee. Half of California and New York packed up and moved there.”

And there’s truth to that. Interstate moving spiked during the pandemic. U.S. Census data shows nearly 7.9 million Americans moved state to state in 2021, up from 7.4 million in 2019. By 2022, that number hit 8.2 million, with huge shifts out of high-cost states and into the South and Mountain West.

When 10,000 new families move into a town that doesn’t have enough roofs to cover them, prices shoot up. That’s not partisan politics; that’s basic supply and demand.

But migration doesn’t close the case on housing policy. It brings us to the bigger, more important question: Why couldn’t the supply of houses keep up when demand soared?

When everyone suddenly wants a new car, a TV, or a refrigerator, factories ramp up production to make more. Housing doesn’t work that way – it’s way more complicated.

Before a builder can put up a single house, townhome, or apartment building, they have to navigate a maze:

Zoning and rezoning hurdles
Permits and infrastructure connections
Environmental reviews and density limits
Minimum lot sizes and parking mandates
Impact fees and local board approvals

Some will argue these rules exist for good reasons – and maybe so. But every single requirement adds time, paperwork, and money. Stack up enough delays and fees, and builders simply can’t make the math work to build starter homes.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has pointed this out in its own research for years: strict zoning and slow permitting drive limited supply and high costs.

So, while migration drove up demand, in many communities, land-use rules, permitting delays, and other constraints made it slower and more expensive for supply to respond.

The $460 Billion Question

This is where the OTB report gets really interesting.

Their researchers tracked $460 billion in federal spending and credit programs across 18 major HUD affordability and low-income housing programs between 2015 and 2024. Then they compared those programs against state-level housing affordability gaps.

The statistical connection between the two was practically zero, which means the math showed that states receiving massive amounts of HUD money didn’t see better housing affordability than states receiving far less.

To be fair, we have to be careful about what that proves. It doesn’t mean Washington burned $460 billion for nothing. Much of HUD’s budget goes toward rental vouchers, homelessness prevention, and supportive housing for low-income families – not necessarily lowering the price of a suburban starter home. Those programs should be judged on whether they help the vulnerable people they were built to serve. Nor does it mean HUD spending caused the price hikes.

But it does raise a fair question that every taxpayer deserves an answer to: After spending hundreds of billions of dollars, what measurable results did the American public actually get?

Subscribe now

Nobody Owns the Outcome

Housing is a prime example of how fragmented our government has gotten. Everyone has enough power to mess with the system, but nobody takes responsibility for the final result.

Look at how the deck is stacked:

The Federal Government hands out subsidies, backs mortgages, and influences credit markets. (The Congressional Budget Office projects around $1.6 trillion in federal housing loans and mortgage guarantees in 2026, mostly through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.)
Federal Reserve policy strongly influences borrowing conditions, while mortgage rates are set in financial markets tied to yields and mortgage-backed securities.
State Governments set the legal rules for how land can and can’t be used.
Cities and Counties control the local zoning maps, permit approvals, and building rules.
Private Builders and Banks decide what makes financial sense to construct and fund.

When demand surges and prices skyrocket, supply stays stuck.

What’s the official response? Congress creates another subsidy. States pass another tax incentive. Localities add another affordable housing mandate.

And somehow, the house still costs more. Everyone points fingers, but nobody owns the outcome.

Before We Pretend This Is Simple

At this point, a few fair objections are worth dealing with directly.

“Gary, you’re blaming zoning for everything.”

No. Housing prices aren’t caused by just one thing. Land costs matter. Labor and materials matter. Interest rates matter. Insurance and property taxes matter. Population growth and migration matter. Geography matters. On top of all that, millions of homeowners with low-rate mortgages have chosen not to sell, locking up existing housing supply.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates home prices rose an average of 10.2% per year between 2020 and 2023 because surging demand slammed directly into a wall of limited inventory.

So, this isn’t an argument that zoning caused the entire housing crisis single-handedly. It’s an argument that when demand shoots up, government shouldn’t make it needlessly hard for supply to respond. There’s a big difference.

“But Gary, local control matters.”

Absolutely. I don’t want Washington deciding what gets built in my neighborhood, and I doubt you do either.

But local control shouldn’t mean local immunity from real-world consequences. Cities and counties get their powers from state law. When dozens of local boards independently block new construction, those decisions pile up into a statewide crisis involving skyrocketing prices, brutal commutes, labor shortages, and stalled economic growth.

The answer isn’t for the state capital to draw every local neighborhood map either. The answer is for states to establish clear, fair “rules of the road” while giving communities freedom inside those boundaries.

That’s federalism, too. Authority stays close to the people, but the government exercising that power remains accountable for the results.

“Developers aren’t going to build cheap houses out of the goodness of their hearts.”

Correct. Developers aren’t charities. They’re businesses and they build what makes economic sense.

And that’s a real issue. When land is expensive, minimum lot sizes are huge, permits take months or years, parking rules are excessive, and local fees keep piling up, the math forces builders to build a $600,000 house instead of a $275,000 starter home.

Stripping away unnecessary red tape doesn’t guarantee a developer will magically build a $200,000 house overnight. But it does do something far more practical: it gives smaller, less expensive homes a fighting chance to make financial sense. That includes townhouses, duplexes, garage apartments, smaller lots, modular homes, and converted commercial spaces.

We don’t need government dictating what builders can make. We just need government to stop making the most expensive option the only one that works on paper.

“What about Wall Street corporations buying up all the houses?”

That’s a legitimate concern, especially in certain parts of the country. Large investment companies have bought up thousands of single-family homes and converted them into rentals, particularly across the southern states from coast to coast – the Sun Belt.

But we also need perspective. A 2026 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study across six major metro areas found large institutional investors owned between 1% and 3% of all single-family homes in those markets – though their share of the rental market was much higher in specific neighborhoods.

So, while Wall Street buying can make local conditions tougher in certain spots, it doesn’t fully explain a housing affordability crisis hitting all 50 states. Once again: there isn’t just one villain.

“But Gary, what about immigration? Isn’t that driving housing costs too?”

Yes, and any rational person will admit that. Immigration affects housing demand, and pretending otherwise is simply foolish.

This is generally where Americans will pull out their “team” jerseys and talk politics, but the economics aren’t that mysterious: more people = more places needed to live. That applies whether the new resident came from California, Guatemala, New York, Venezuela, Ohio, or anywhere else.

The large immigration surge that began in 2021 did increase housing demand; no question. The CBO concluded that the surge increased the number of households, worsened the housing shortage in the short term, and put additional upward pressure on rents and home prices – especially in communities where zoning, land-use restrictions, or geography prevent housing supply from expanding quickly.

So, anyone saying immigration has nothing to do with housing affordability is ignoring economic facts. But we should also be careful about going too far in the other direction.

You’ll sometimes hear that immigrants are consuming America’s entire supply of affordable housing, often with two or three families packed into a single house. But if three families share one house, they’re occupying one housing unit, not three. Plus, CBO notes that many recent immigrants initially stay with family, friends, or in temporary housing rather than immediately forming separate households. Housing pressure grows over time as those individuals establish themselves and move into apartments or homes of their own.

Additionally, Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that foreign-born households accounted for about 25 percent of household growth between 2019 and 2023. In other words, immigration contributed significantly to demand, but 75 percent of household growth during that period still came from the native-born population. Moreover, the major run-up in home prices began during the pandemic, before international migration accelerated in 2022 and 2023.

And there is yet another wrinkle: immigrants don’t only consume housing – they help build it. In 2023, immigrants represented roughly one-third of workers in construction trades nationally, with substantially higher shares in several of the fastest-growing states.

Finally, net international migration fell sharply in 2025 and 2026 according to Harvard’s 2026 data, yet America’s housing affordability problems are still here.

The responsible position is straightforward: control the border and enforce immigration law but recognize that whatever population America admits legally must be planned for. Population growth matters, immigration matters, domestic migration matters, household formation matters, interest rates matter, and housing supply matters. The mistake is picking the single factor that fits our politics while ignoring all the others.

“Why not just give first-time buyers down payment assistance?”

I tend to agree. There’s nothing wrong with helping qualified working families clear a financial hurdle to buy a home. But we have to think strategically, at least 2-3 moves ahead of the game.

If ten families are competing for five starter homes, giving all ten of them a check doesn’t magically create a sixth house. It just gives someone more cash to win a bidding war. So, unless supply can actually grow, we are still fighting over the exact same five houses.

Down payment assistance can help people compete; supply-side reform creates actual places for them to live. Serious housing policy understands the difference.

Subscribe now

So How Do We Actually Fix It?

Here’s where politicians usually lose most of us. Anyone can describe a problem, and anyone can announce some grand plan that will fix it all, but the real challenge is turning good intentions into actual changes on the ground.

The answer starts with a simple framework: Three levels of government. Three distinct jobs. One public scorecard.

Step 1: Measure the Problem Locally

Before launching another program, states need an honest picture of what their housing market actually looks like – county by county and city by city:

How long does it take to get a permit approved?
What do development fees actually cost?
How many new homes are getting built versus local population growth?
How fast are rents and home prices rising compared to local paychecks?
Where is water, sewer, and road capacity maxed out?

Publish those numbers online where taxpayers can see them. You can’t hold anyone accountable if you don’t know where you started.

Step 2: Washington Measures What Washington Spends

Congress needs to give every federal housing program a clear mission and a few plain metrics to judge success – then post those results publicly. Focus on real outcomes, not how much taxpayer money was handed out:

Homelessness programs should be judged by whether people stay housed long-term.
Homebuyer assistance should be judged by whether families sustainably build equity over time.
Supply incentives should be judged by how many homes actually get built, how long it took, and what it cost.

If a program consistently fails, fix it, consolidate it, or shut it down.

Congress actually took a step in this direction when the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was signed into law in July 2026. That law expands supply, streamlines reviews, supports manufactured housing, and curbs large institutional buying.

That’s a good step, but it’s not “fire-and-forget” – we have to track the results. Five years from now, taxpayers should be able to look at that law and answer a simple question: Did it actually work? Passing a bill isn’t the finish line – it’s the green flag.

Step 3: States Set the Rules of the Road

States should review local housing barriers and set a basic floor for predictability:

Projects that follow existing zoning rules should get straightforward, “by-right” approvals (if a builder’s plans follow all city/county written rules, they must be granted a permit with no arbitrary or “good ole boys” delays).
Permitting must have firm, published deadlines.
Local governments must clearly disclose all development fees upfront.
States should make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, townhomes, modular housing, and adaptive reuses.

This isn’t taking away local control. It’s making local control transparent and fair.

Step 4: Local Governments Make Growth Predictable

This is where homes actually get built or blocked. Every community should show residents and builders where growth is planned, what can be built, what infrastructure is needed, and what the rules are.

If a project follows the rules, getting approved shouldn’t require a two-year political battle. Community members should help write the long-term plan, but once the rules are set, local leaders need to stick to them.

Predictability works for everyone: residents know what can happen nearby, builders know if a project makes financial sense before spending millions, and local boards can’t rewrite the rules based on who shows up angry to a Wednesday night meeting.

Step 5: Growth Pays Its Fair Share – But Only Its Fair Share

The infrastructure argument is completely valid. New homes bring more students, more traffic, higher water usage, and heavier demands on public safety. (I’m looking at you Frederick County, VA)

So lay out the costs transparently:

If 2,000 new homes require a new water line or school expansion, calculate the exact cost.
Separate what is directly caused by the new development from what benefits the existing town.
Divide the bill fairly.

Impact fees shouldn’t be used as a stealth tax to keep newcomers out, nor should existing residents be forced to foot the bill for every bit of new expansion. Growth should help pay for growth – fairly, transparently, and tied directly to actual infrastructure needs.

Step 6: Bring Back the Bottom Rung

For decades, the American housing market worked like a ladder. You started small – a modest rancher, a small Cape Cod, a townhouse, or a home that needed some work. You built equity, and eventually, you moved up.

We need that bottom rung back.

That means allowing more diverse housing types in smart locations. It means embracing modern manufactured and modular builds, smaller homes on smaller lots, and converting empty shopping centers or office spaces where it makes sense.

And it means accepting an uncomfortable reality: A healthy housing market can’t guarantee ever-rising values for current owners alongside permanently affordable prices for the next generation. Those two goals eventually collide.

A house should be a place to live and a way to build security over time. But an economy that requires every generation to pay dramatically more than the last for the exact same starter home simply isn’t sustainable.

Step 7: Publish an Annual Scorecard

Then comes the part government usually tries to avoid: keeping score.

Publish a simple, single-page scorecard every year for every state and major locality:

Home price growth vs. local income growth
Rent burdens on average paychecks
Permits issued vs. completed homes
Average approval times
Local infrastructure capacity
Total housing spending vs. measurable real-world outcomes

Don’t change the metrics when the numbers look bad, and don’t hide them in a 400-page report. Put them on one page online, and let voters judge whether their government is actually delivering.

Subscribe now

Washington Has Started – Now We Hold Them to It

This piece started with an OpenTheBooks analysis covering 2015 through 2024. But housing policy didn’t stop there.

With the passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in July 2026, parts of these reforms are no longer theoretical – they’re official federal policy. That makes accountability more critical than ever. Instead of arguing forever over party talking points, we now have concrete measures to track:

Did permitting and construction actually get easier?
Are more starter and modular homes hitting the market?
Did restricting Wall Street buyers open up doors for real families?
Did federal dollars produce measurable results?

These are the exact questions we need to ask candidates in November – and hold officials to results long after election day.

Passing new housing laws isn’t the goal. Making housing attainable for working families is. And those two things aren’t the same.

What to Ask on Election Day

On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, Americans will go to the polls to elect the entire U.S. House of Representatives and a third of the U.S. Senate. And, depending on where you live, you’ll also be voting on state legislators, county boards, city councils, and local referendums.

When people think about housing, they often look straight to Washington. But your local mayor, city council member, or county supervisor has far more power over whether a neighborhood of starter homes gets built than anyone in the U.S. Senate.

So, instead of accepting generic campaign promises to “make housing affordable,” we should be asking direct questions at town halls:

To Federal Candidates: Which federal housing programs are actually working, how do you measure that, and which ones would you end? What is Washington’s actual job here?
To State Candidates: When should the state step in on local land-use rules, and when should it back off? How do we increase supply without imposing one-size-fits-all mandates?
To Local Candidates: Which specific local regulations make housing needlessly expensive here? Which rules serve a genuine purpose, and which ones are just blocking growth?
To Every Candidate: How will you measure whether your housing policies actually worked five years from now?

These aren’t Republican or Democratic questions. They are serious questions that deserve serious answers.

Real Accountability

We often talk about federalism as a principle to keep Washington’s power in check and while that’s part of it, the other half is accountability.

If Washington spends hundreds of billions, Congress should prove what it accomplished.
If a state delegates land-use powers to towns, legislators should monitor what those rules are doing to young families.
If a county board blocks new construction, local officials should explain the consequences to buyers getting priced out.

No elected official should get to point fingers forever. The people paying the price aren’t federal bureaucrats, zoning boards, or economists.

It’s the 28-year-old couple sitting at the kitchen table staring at a mortgage calculator. It’s the family watching rent eat up half their paycheck. It’s the parent wondering if their adult children will have to move three states away just to buy a starter home.

We don’t need the federal government to guarantee everyone a house, and we don’t need Washington planning our neighborhoods. What we need is much simpler:

Let supply respond when demand grows.
Protect people who genuinely need help.
Build the infrastructure growing communities need.
Cut rules that drive up costs without adding real value.
Judge government programs on real-world results.

After decades of promises, subsidies, and endless regulations, Americans deserve to know who is responsible and whether what they’re doing truly works.

That is what accountability looks like. And that is what real governance is supposed to deliver.

Gary Mullins (Libertas)
The Publius Project

OpenTheBooks – Extreme Makeover: American Dream Edition? Government Intervention, Affordability, and the Dream of Home Ownership, 2026. Principal report behind this article, including the 2015–2024 comparison of household-income growth and home-price growth, analysis of approximately $460 billion in HUD program spending, and the state-level regression analysis.
OpenTheBooks – “Extreme Makeover: American Dream Edition?”, August 23, 2026. Summary and discussion accompanying the full OpenTheBooks housing report.
U.S. Census Bureau – American Community Survey, Table S1901: Income in the Past 12 Months. State-level median household income data used in comparisons of income and housing-price growth.
U.S. Census Bureau – “Number and Percentage of State-to-State Movers Increased Between 2021 and 2022,” November 21, 2023. Data on interstate migration, including increased state-to-state movement during and following the pandemic.
Federal Housing Finance Agency – FHFA House Price Index. Federal data measuring changes in single-family home prices nationally and by state using repeat-property transactions.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing: Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Opportunities, January 2021. HUD review of zoning, permitting, fees, land-use regulations, and other governmental barriers that can constrain housing supply and increase development costs.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD description of the federal rental-assistance program and the populations it is designed to serve, illustrating why HUD programs should be evaluated according to their individual missions rather than solely against home-purchase prices.
HUD USER / Cityscape – “How Can Procedural Reform Support Fair Share Housing Production? Assessing the Effects of California’s Senate Bill 35.” Research examining whether streamlined and more predictable approval procedures can accelerate housing development.
HUD USER / Cityscape – “Learning from Land Use Reforms: The Case of Ramapo, New York.” Case study examining land-use reform, multifamily development, growth, and the infrastructure demands that can accompany additional housing.
Congressional Budget Office – Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2026. CBO analysis of federal housing and real-estate credit assistance, including mortgage guarantees through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Congressional Budget Office – Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034, Part 1. CBO analysis of the recent immigration surge and housing. CBO concluded that increased immigration raises housing demand, estimated that the surge had already added roughly 200,000 households at the time of its analysis, and projected that its effect on the housing shortage would peak around 2030 before housing supply catches up. CBO also noted that the price effects are greater in places where zoning, land-use rules, or geography constrain new supply.
Congressional Budget Office – The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036. CBO analysis of recent housing-market conditions, including the rapid increase in home prices from 2020 through 2023 as strong demand collided with limited inventory.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System – Monetary Policy Report, July 2026. Federal Reserve discussion of financial conditions, interest rates, Treasury yields, and agency mortgage-backed securities, whose yields are an important factor in the setting of home mortgage interest rates.
U.S. Government Accountability Office – Rental Housing: Institutional Investor Ownership of Single-Family Rental Homes, GAO-26-108675, March 24, 2026. GAO examination of institutional-investor ownership in Cincinnati, Dallas, Jacksonville, Nashville, Phoenix, and Seattle. Institutional investors owned less than 1% to 3% of all single-family homes in the six markets studied, although their share of single-family rental homes was substantially higher in some markets.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University – Riordan Frost, “The Role of the Recent Immigrant Surge in Housing Costs,” October 29, 2024. Analysis of immigration and housing demand finding that foreign-born householders accounted for about 25% of U.S. household growth from 2019 through 2023. The study also notes that the major pandemic-era surge in home prices and rents began before immigration accelerated in 2022 and 2023, while immigrants simultaneously provide a significant share of the construction workforce.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University – The State of the Nation’s Housing 2026, June 2026. National housing-market assessment documenting persistent affordability problems, slow household formation, housing-supply conditions, declining residential mobility, and the sharp recent decline in net international migration.
U.S. Government Publishing Office / Office of the Federal Register – 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, Public Law 119-101, approved July 11, 2026. Official text of the bipartisan federal housing law enacted in 2026 to increase housing supply and address other housing-market issues.
Federal Election Commission – Election and Voting Information. Federal election information confirming the November 3, 2026 general election date.
U.S. House of Representatives – Representatives / Congressional Elections. Official House information regarding the two-year terms of representatives and the regular election cycle for all voting House seats.
U.S. Senate – Class II Senators Whose Terms Expire in 2027. Official Senate listing of Class II Senate seats reaching the end of their current terms following the 2026 election.

The People’s Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 10:45:49 GMT

Week Ending September 4, 2026

Subscribe now

Congress Bought Itself Until December

Congress came back to Washington, worked for a few days, and then headed right back out.

But those few days produced several votes worthy of our attention.

Congress avoided an October government shutdown by extending federal funding through December. The House passed legislation speeding federal reviews for mining projects. It also approved a bill threatening federal aid to universities that boycott Israel. And Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to amend the Constitution to permanently set the Supreme Court at nine justices.

There is a common thread running through much of it:

Washington keeps finding ways to postpone hard decisions while permanently changing the rules around the edges.

Here’s what happened in our names last week.

1. Biggest Story of the Week: Congress Avoided a Shutdown by Moving the Deadline

What Happened

The House voted 370–48 on September 1st to approve a temporary government funding bill that had already passed the Senate.

President Trump signed it on September 2.

The law keeps most federal agencies funded through December 11th, preventing the government from running out of money when the new fiscal year begins October 1.

This kind of temporary spending law is called a continuing resolution, or CR.

In normal English: Congress didn’t do its job again this year by failing to finish deciding how much money the government should spend next year, so it extended much of the current arrangement for another couple of months.

What Changed

The immediate threat of an October shutdown is gone.

That is genuinely good news for federal employees, contractors, military families, businesses dealing with federal agencies, and Americans who depend on government services.

But virtually none of the underlying spending decisions were resolved.

Congress simply changed the deadline from September 30th to December 11th.

That also moves the next major spending fight beyond the November 3 midterm elections.

Why It Matters

There is nothing inherently wrong with using a temporary funding bill during an emergency or unusually complicated negotiation.

The problem is that temporary funding has become normal.

Since the modern congressional budget process began, Congress has completed all of its regular appropriations before the new fiscal year began only four times: FY1977, FY1989, FY1995 and FY1997.

The last time was September 1996.

Thirty years later, Congress is once again entering a new fiscal year without completing its annual spending work.

That matters because a continuing resolution largely preserves yesterday’s spending priorities rather than forcing lawmakers to publicly decide what should grow, what should shrink, what should disappear, and what taxpayers should stop funding altogether.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Federal employees and contractors because the immediate risk of another shutdown disappears. Americans who depend on federal services because agencies will remain open and operating. And members of Congress, where a likely nasty spending fight has been moved safely beyond Election Day.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers because much of the federal government continues operating on autopilot without a full program-by-program spending debate.
Federal managers because temporary funding makes long-term planning harder and can delay new programs or priorities. And congressional accountability, because lawmakers avoid the deadline without actually doing the work that created it.

Publius Project Take

Avoiding a shutdown is better than having one, but that’s a pretty damn low standard if simply keeping the government open now counts as successful budgeting.

Congress knows when the fiscal year ends because it happens on the same date every year - September 30th. Nobody surprised them with it.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse because spending taxpayer money should require deliberate legislative choices.

And, as I said, a temporary funding patch can be useful, but it’s not supposed to be the standard operating procedure of the United States Congress.

What to Watch For Next

December 11th is now the important date.

The question is whether Congress uses the extra time to finish the annual spending bills or waits until December and rolls everything into another giant, last-minute package.

History suggests taxpayers should expect another extension, especially since lawmakers will spend the next two months campaigning for their jobs.

2. Quietly Moving Bills: Congress Wants to Speed Up Mining Permits

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, by a vote of 218–201 on September 2nd.

The legislation would permanently make mining and mineral-processing projects eligible for a federal permitting system known as FAST-41, which sounds more complicated than it actually is.

Large projects often require approvals from several federal agencies. FAST-41 creates a coordinated timetable, publicly tracks milestones, and tries to keep those agencies from endlessly passing a project back and forth.

The bill would also prevent a proposed rule that could limit the expedited process mainly to mining involving designated critical minerals.

What Changed

Mining projects are already eligible for FAST-41 under current federal policy.

H.R. 1501 would write that eligibility directly into law, making it harder for a future administration to change the policy through regulation, which is an important feature.

This is less about creating an entirely new permitting system than about deciding whether access to that system should depend on whoever occupies the White House.

Why It Matters

We depend heavily on foreign sources for minerals used in electronics, vehicles, energy systems, and defense equipment.

Supporters argue that taking years or even decades to approve domestic mining projects makes America more dependent on countries such as China, which is a legitimate national security concern.

Opponents argue that FAST-41 can shorten opportunities for public challenges and judicial review, and they want the faster process limited primarily to minerals that are actually critical to national security.

Importantly, the bill does NOT simply erase federal environmental laws. Projects would still have to undergo required environmental reviews.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Domestic mining companies with more predictable federal permitting. Manufacturers with potentially greater access to minerals produced inside the US. And national-security planners because less dependence on foreign mineral supply chains could reduce a significant strategic vulnerability.
Likely Losers: Environmental and tribal groups because faster permitting timelines may give communities less room to challenge projects they believe threaten land, water, or tribal interests. And projects competing for federal review resources because expanding FAST-41 to essentially all qualifying mining projects could mean less attention for minerals considered truly critical.

Publius Project Take

America should absolutely produce more of the resources we need here at home. Depending on geopolitical rivals for materials essential to our military and economy is and always has been a stupid policy. But permitting reform should mean making government reach a decision faster, not guaranteeing industry the answer it wants.

And that distinction matters, because the government should establish clear standards, clear timelines, and transparent decisions; then approve good projects and reject bad ones. And we should stop making everybody wait 15 years to find out which is which.

What to Watch For Next

H.R. 1501 now moves to the Senate.

Watch whether senators keep its broad coverage or narrow the expedited process specifically to critical minerals and strategically important projects.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending: Three Spending Bills Down. Nine to Go. And None are Law.

What Happened

Congress has twelve regular appropriations bills that fund most day-to-day federal agencies and programs and, as of September 3rd, the House had only passed three:

Agriculture
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
National Security and State Department programs

The remaining nine have cleared the House Appropriations Committee but not the full House.

The Senate hasn’t passed any of the twelve.

And none have become law.

What Changed

Practically speaking, the September 30th deadline no longer means much. Congress has passed another temporary funding measure through December 11th.

That removes the threat of an immediate shutdown but also removes most of the pressure that might’ve forced lawmakers to finish the appropriations process.

Why It Matters

Appropriations are where Congress is supposed to ask basic questions:

Does this program work?
Should it still exist?
Does it need more money?
Could it operate with less?
Is another program doing the same thing?

A continuing resolution largely avoids those questions by extending current funding.

That’s very convenient, but it’s not oversight.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Existing federal programs, congressional leadership and anyone who benefits from avoiding a detailed spending fight before an election.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers, fiscal accountability and lawmakers who actually want individual spending bills debated on their merits.

Publius Project Take

This is exactly why the Publius Project has argued for single-subject bills, stronger sunset requirements and a Congress that actually spends enough time legislating to do its job.

The federal government spends trillions of dollars.

Congress should not fund it like someone frantically paying bills at 11:58 p.m. before the power gets shut off.

What to Watch For Next

Watch December.

If Congress starts talking about an enormous year-end omnibus spending bill, remember this moment.

They had more than three additional months.

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

Nothing. Again.

The House designated September 3 through September 13 as a district work period, meaning lawmakers are back home rather than conducting normal legislative business in Washington.

So, there are no major House bills to preview this week.

Publius Project Take

This is one place where we’re not going to reflexively complain about Congress leaving Washington, because representatives should spend meaningful time in their districts.

The problem isn’t going home.

The problem is returning to Washington and still refusing to complete the basic work.

Ask your representative what he or she intends to do about the nine appropriations bills the House hasn’t passed.

That’s what a district work period is supposed to be for.

What to Watch For Next

The House returns for regular business after September 13th.

Its first priority should be obvious:

Finish the damn spending bills.

5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power: Can D.C. Punish a University for Boycotting Israel?

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, 237–169 on September 3rd.

Thirty-three Democrats joined 203 Republicans in supporting it. Two Republicans voted against it.

The bill would make colleges participating in federal student-aid programs ineligible if the institution engages in what the legislation calls a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel or Israeli businesses without a legitimate business reason.

It would also require certain universities receiving federal international-education funding to treat academic programs involving Israel the same way they treat programs involving other foreign countries.

What Changed

The debate over Israel and American universities has moved from congressional hearings and presidential pressure into actual legislation.

The House is now proposing to attach federal funding consequences to certain institutional decisions involving Israel.

The bill still needs Senate approval to become law.

Why It Matters

There are two legitimate principles colliding here.

The first is that taxpayers shouldn’t be required to subsidize discrimination.

Supporters argue that federally funded universities shouldn’t single out Israeli institutions, businesses, students, or professors merely because they are Israeli.

Fair enough - but the second principle is freedom of expression.

Political boycotts have a long history in America as a way citizens and organizations protest government policies they oppose.

That means Congress has to be extremely careful when it starts saying:

You may hold this political position, but adopting it as institutional policy could cost you federal money.

The bill’s authors tried to address that concern by focusing on what they describe as commercial conduct rather than speech. Critics argue the distinction may not be nearly that clean in practice.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Israeli universities, researchers and businesses because American universities receiving federal support would face consequences for singling them out commercially or academically. And students seeking programs in Israel because universities covered by the bill would have to provide equal access to those opportunities.
Likely Losers: Universities participating in Israel boycotts because federal student-aid eligibility could be put at risk. And free-expression advocates because they worry Congress is using federal money to discourage politically motivated boycotts.

Publius Project Take

We don’t have to support the BDS movement to recognize the constitutional danger here. In fact, this is where principles matter most, because it’s easy to defend speech we agree with.

The First Amendment becomes important when somebody says something - or supports something - we think is wrong.

At the same time, federal taxpayers don’t have an unlimited obligation to subsidize discriminatory conduct by universities.

So, Congress needs to draw this line very carefully.

If the law targets actual discrimination against Israeli students, professors, or institutions because of their national origin, there is a strong case for action, but if it turns into a mechanism for punishing universities because they adopt a political position toward the Israeli government, that’s a very different matter.

Government should fight discrimination, but it shouldn’t be the national referee of acceptable political opinion.

What to Watch For Next

The Senate gets the bill now.

Watch whether senators narrow its language, strengthen protections for political expression or allow it to die without a vote.

6. What to Watch Next Week

Both chambers return to regular legislative business on September 14.

The Senate already has one significant item waiting.

On September 15th, senators are scheduled to vote on whether to move forward with H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the major cryptocurrency regulatory bill we discussed in the previous Ledger.

Also watch:

The FY2027 appropriations bills. Congress now has until December 11th, but every week it waits makes a giant year-end package more likely.

The Russia sanctions package. The Senate passed it before recess, but House action is still needed.

H.R. 4795. The university-Israel boycott legislation now waits on the Senate.

Supreme Court reform. The House voted 212–206 this week for a proposed constitutional amendment permanently setting the Court at nine justices, but constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote, so the proposal failed. The Constitution currently doesn’t specify the size of the Court, which has remained at nine since 1869.

That vote went nowhere legally.

Politically, expect the fight over the Court to continue straight through the midterms.

Subscribe now

7. The Ledger’s Bottom Line

Congress did one genuinely useful thing this week - it removed the immediate threat of another government shutdown.

That’s a good thing.

But avoiding disaster isn’t the same thing as governing well. Congress still hasn’t enacted a single FY2027 appropriations bill. It’s now pushed the spending deadline beyond the election.

It spent valuable floor time on a constitutional amendment that had virtually no chance of passing while most of the government’s annual spending bills remain unfinished.

And it waded into another difficult First Amendment dispute involving universities and Israel.

There were worthwhile ideas in this week’s legislation.

Domestic mineral production deserves attention. Universities shouldn’t discriminate. The government shouldn’t shut down every few months because Congress can’t do their job.

But the same institutional problem keeps showing up:

Congress is very good at reacting to problems and very bad at doing the slow, boring work that prevents them.

Self-government requires more than speeches and emergency patches.

At some point, the legislature has to legislate.

8. Sources and Further Reading

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: FY2027 Appropriations Watch and status of all twelve regular spending bills.

Reuters: House passage and presidential approval of the continuing resolution through December 11.

Congressional Research Service: Historical use of continuing resolutions and the last fiscal year in which Congress completed all regular appropriations before October 1.

House Committee on Natural Resources and Congressional Record: H.R. 1501 and the debate over FAST-41 permitting for mining projects.

Congressional Budget Office and Government Publishing Office: Provisions of H.R. 4795 governing university boycotts and federal education funding.

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives: Roll-call votes on H.R. 4795 and the proposed Supreme Court amendment.

United States Senate: September return schedule and planned consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.

The People's Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:44:37 GMT

Week Ending August 8, 2026

Subscribe now

Congress Heads Home, but Leaves Plenty on the Table

Ok everyone, if you haven’t heard, Congress has officially called it quits for the rest of August. But before slipping out of town, the Senate managed to squeeze in a few last-minute items in its final days.

In rapid-fire succession, senators passed a major Russia sanctions bill, approved yet another temporary spending band-aid, advanced a contempt charge against Anthony Fauci, and set up a major crypto vote for when they get back.

Here’s what happened in our name last week.

1. Biggest Story of the Week: Senate Passes Sweeping Russia Sanctions and More Tariff Power for the President

What Happened

The Senate passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 by a huge margin of 86–11.

The bill squeezes Russia’s energy income and gives the president authority to slap tariffs as high as 100% on goods from countries that keep buying Russian oil or natural gas. It also expands sanctions on Russian officials, financial institutions, and sanctions-evasion networks, while keeping pressure on Iran.

Senator Rand Paul tried to strip out the presidential tariff power, but his amendment failed 32-64. The bill now goes to the House.

Why It Matters

The goal of the law makes sense: starve Russia’s war machine. But, as we all know, tariffs don’t magically get paid by foreign governments. They’re paid by American businesses importing those goods, which is almost always passed down to the consumer.

There’s also a big constitutional issue here. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, not the White House. Congress is, yet again, handing over enormous power to the executive branch instead of taking on their lawful responsibility.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Ukraine and fans of tighter Russian sanctions. Plus, the White House gets another powerful tool in its belt.
Likely Losers: Russia, allied nations dependent on Russian energy, and American consumers when prices rise. And Congress itself, if another traditionally legislative power becomes primarily presidential discretion.

Publius Project Take

I suppose there’s a solid case for sanctioning Russia. But there’s an equally solid case for Congress actually doing its job. If lawmakers want 100% tariffs on certain countries, they should write those specific conditions into the law themselves, not hand the president a blank check labeled “do what you want, when you want.”

What to Watch For Next

The House returns to regular business at the end of August, and the sanctions package will face another debate there. One of the biggest questions will be whether House lawmakers are willing to give the president the same tariff discretion the Senate approved.

2. Quietly Moving Bills: Crypto Rules are Finally Moving

What Happened

Before leaving D.C., Senate leadership cleared the runway to vote on the CLARITY Act (H.R. 3633) as soon as they return in September.

This bill would create the first comprehensive federal framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets, splitting oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Why It Matters

Crypto has grown way faster than the laws governing it. For years, federal agencies have been ruling by lawsuit instead of clear legislation. Whether you own crypto or still aren’t sure what a blockchain is, the principle here is simple: Congress makes the rules; agencies enforce them.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Legitimate cryptocurrency businesses seeking predictable rules, investors who benefit from clearer protections, and Congress if it finally establishes the law instead of leaving regulators to invent it.
Likely Losers: Companies that profit from regulatory gray areas and bad actors who benefit from weak oversight.

Publius Project Take

For too long, Congress has had the order of operations backward; agencies essentially writing laws and Congress enforcing them.

If the CLARITY Act creates understandable rules while preventing regulators from simply making policy through enforcement actions, that’s a move in the right direction.

The details will matter.

What to Watch For Next

The Senate is now in its August state work period, with regular legislative business scheduled to resume September 14^th.

The CLARITY Act will be waiting when senators return.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending: Congress Has Officially Started Planning for Failure

What Happened

The Senate voted 90-6 to pass a temporary funding bill (Continuing Resolution) to keep the government running through December 11^th – past the end of the fiscal year on September 30^th and, very conveniently, beyond the November midterm election.

Why It Matters

Remember the trivia from last week?

The last time Congress completed all of its annual appropriations before the fiscal year began was 1996.

Thirty years later, the “temporary emergency fix” is just our regular routine now. Congress still has roughly six weeks to get the job done, but, yet again, they’ve already admitted failure.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Federal agencies, contractors and lawmakers who avoid a politically damaging shutdown immediately before an election.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers and anyone who still expects Congress to examine federal spending one department and one program at a time.

Publius Project Take

A continuing resolution is supposed to be the emergency fire extinguisher behind the glass. Instead, Congress just walks around with the damn thing in its hands, year-round. Extending last year’s spending indefinitely isn’t governance; it’s just laziness.

What to Watch For Next

The House must eventually accept the Senate version, modify it or force negotiations between the chambers.

September will tell us whether Congress uses the extra time to finish its appropriations bills, but I think we all know what will happen.

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

Nothing. The House Is on Recess.

The House remains away from regular legislative business during its August district work period. It will continue holding brief procedural sessions, but meaningful floor action isn’t expected until lawmakers return near the end of the month.

Publius Project Take

Recess itself isn’t the problem.

Representatives are supposed to spend time in their districts. In fact, Congress could use considerably more time outside Washington and among the people it represents. But the clock keeps turning while they’re gone, and there will be much less of it when they return.

Government funding expires September 30^th, and most of the FY2027 appropriations process remains unfinished.

What to Watch For Next

The House is expected back for regular legislative work at the end of August.

Then the sprint begins.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power: The Fauci Contempt Fight Moves Forward

What Happened

The Senate Homeland Security Committee voted 8–5 along party lines to hold former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress.

Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during recent subpoenaed testimony. Chairman Rand Paul argues Fauci can’t claim the Fifth on topics covered by the broad presidential pardon he received in January 2025. Committee Democrats argue that overriding a witness’s Fifth Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent.

What Changed

Last week, contempt was a threat. This week, the committee actually approved it.

For the matter to proceed through the traditional Senate process, however, the full Senate would still have to act.

Why It Matters

This isn’t as simple as “Fauci is hiding something” or “Congress can’t ask questions.”

Congress has a duty to oversee federal agencies, but citizens have constitutional rights. Because a presidential pardon doesn’t automatically protect a witness from every possible legal angle, forcing testimony creates a thorny legal question about where congressional power ends and civil liberties begin.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Nobody yet. This is heading toward a constitutional and procedural fight.
Likely Losers: Congressional oversight if the Senate handles this as political theater instead of carefully establishing when a witness can and cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Publius Project Take

The public deserves complete transparency about the COVID-19 response. But constitutional rights don’t disappear just because a witness is controversial. If a pardon eliminates legal jeopardy for a specific question, compel the answer through the courts – don’t let politicians decide when the Fifth Amendment is inconvenient.

What to Watch For Next

The issue now waits for possible action by the full Senate after lawmakers return.

That debate should focus less on Fauci personally and more on the much bigger question: where exactly does congressional investigative power end and an individual’s constitutional protection begin?

6. What to Watch Next Week

Not much on the floor.

Both chambers are essentially in their August work periods. The Senate will hold pro forma sessions, brief meetings where no normal legislative business is expected, and won’t return for regular business until September 14th.

With lawmakers back home for the August recess, this is the best time to call their local offices or attend a town hall. Here are four quick questions to ask them:

On Spending: “Why haven’t you finished the twelve basic budget bills after 30 years of missing the deadline?”
On Tariffs: “Should the president really have total discretion to levy 100% tariffs without a vote from Congress?”
On Oversight: “Where do you draw the line between Congressional investigations and Fifth Amendment protections?”
On Crypto: “Do you support setting clear statutory rules for digital assets instead of letting regulatory agencies enforce by lawsuit?”

Recess is meant to bring politicians back to the people. Let’s make them answer to us.

7. The Ledger’s Bottom Line

Congress actually accomplished several things before leaving town, and those things probably deserve acknowledgment.

But their old habits remain.

Congress is already preparing another temporary spending bill because it doesn’t expect to complete its basic budget work. And even while trying to reclaim authority through sanctions and oversight, lawmakers continue flirting with giving enormous discretion to the executive branch.

That contradiction is becoming one of the defining features of modern Congress.

Lawmakers complain that presidents have too much power. Then they keep handing them more.

Congress can’t restore its constitutional role until it decides it actually wants the responsibility that comes with it.

8. Sources and Further Reading

United States Senate: Official floor activity and roll-call votes on H.R. 5334, H.R. 6500, H.R. 3633 and other Senate business.

Associated Press: Reporting on the Russia sanctions legislation and temporary government funding agreement.

Reuters: Reporting on the Russia sanctions package, presidential tariff authority and Senate continuing resolution.

House Appropriations Committee: Status of FY2027 appropriations legislation.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: Majority and minority positions on the Fauci contempt resolution.

United States Senate Calendar: August state work period and September return schedule.

Episode 15: The President Isn't a King - And Congress Isn't a Spectator

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 12:02:18 GMT

The Defiant Citizen - A Publius Project Podcast: A return to first principles, where self-governance, responsibility, and the role of the citizen take center stage.

Subscribe now

For more than eighty years, Congress has avoided formally declaring war.

Yet during that time, presidents have sent American forces into conflicts around the world, millions of lives have been lost across those war zones, trillions of dollars have been spent, and meaningful congressional oversight has often been little more than an afterthought.

That failure tells us something important about the modern presidency:

The president didn’t accumulate that power alone.

Congress helped build our modern imperial presidency by surrendering its own responsibilities, passing vague laws, delegating major decisions to executive agencies, and avoiding the difficult votes the Constitution requires it to make.

In the newest episode, I examine how presidential power expanded - and why restoring constitutional balance will require more than simply restraining the White House.

America doesn’t need a weak president.

The country needs an executive capable of enforcing the law, administering the government, conducting diplomacy, defending the nation, and acting decisively when legitimate action is needed.

But strength isn’t the same thing as unlimited authority.

Our president was never meant to write laws Congress refused to pass, spend money Congress didn’t authorize, maintain emergency powers indefinitely, or take the country into prolonged wars without congressional ownership.

This episode also explores executive orders, agency rulemaking, presidential pardons, congressional oversight, war powers, and the question at the heart of every debate over presidential authority:

Think of a presidential power you strongly support. Now place that same power in the hands of the president you trust least. Are you still comfortable with it?

If the answer changes depending on who occupies the White House, then the principle was never constitutional. It was partisan.

This episode is based on Restoration Paper No. 14: The Limited Executive, part of the Publius Project’s flagship series examining how to restore constitutional structure, representative government and public accountability.

The president isn’t a king. Congress isn’t a spectator.

And the Constitution isn’t optional.

Listen Here

The People's Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 11:32:28 GMT

Week Ending August 1, 2026

Subscribe now

So, Congress spent this week making big choices about war, money, trade, and our constitutional rights. Some of those choices were made on the record with clear yes/no votes. But many were made through a classic D.C. two-step trick: avoiding a real decision altogether and letting the White House, party leaders, or the next deadline clock take the wheel.

Last week was revealing on Capitol Hill:

The Senate refused to bring an Iran war-powers debate to the floor, moved forward on a huge sanctions bill that hands broad tariff powers to the president, and started prepping another temporary spending bill because they haven’t finished the federal budget - yet again.
The House packed its bags and left for its traditional August recess. They skipped town with no plans for anything for the next month. What a great idea, as usual, to head out of town with only 60 days to get something done before the end of the fiscal year.

In any case, here’s what happened in our name last week.

1. The Big Story: The Senate Refused to Debate the Iran War

What Happened

This past Thursday, the 30th, the Senate voted 49–50 against bringing Senate Joint Resolution 181 to the floor for debate.

To do this, they used a procedure called “motion to discharge,” which just means they pulled the bill out of a committee room so the entire Senate can talk about it. They weren’t voting on whether to bring troops home or end military actions against Iran; they were voting on whether they should even be allowed to talk about it on the floor.

The resolution would’ve required the president to pull U.S. forces out of active conflict with Iran unless Congress explicitly declared war or authorized military force. It did still allow the president to defend the country against any direct or incoming attack.

Three Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul) voted with most Democrats to open the debate.
Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against opening debate.
Senator Mitch McConnell didn’t vote because, well…you know.

What Changed

Legally: Nothing. The resolution is stuck in committee, and the President keeps doing what he’s been doing.
Politically: A clear majority of the Senate refused to hold a public, recorded debate over whether America should be at war.

This isn’t a one-time thing either. The Senate has repeatedly refused to talk about Iran war-powers measures in 2026. The unwritten rule in Washington is becoming painfully clear:

The president acts first. Then Congress avoids any real votes that would force them to take personal responsibility for the outcome.

Why It Matters

The Founders didn’t give Congress the power over war because they thought 535 politicians were military geniuses. They did it because deciding to go to war should be left to the people and it shouldn’t be an easy decision. There should be debates. Military action puts American men and women in harm’s way, spends billions of taxpayer dollars, exposes us to retaliation, and risks pulling us, yet again, into another endless conflict. That choice shouldn’t and doesn’t belong to just one person.

Whether you think military action against Iran is necessary or dangerous, every one of us deserves the same basic thing: a clear, recorded vote from the people we sent to D.C. to represent us.

When our reps refuse to debate, we don’t get the answers we should as citizens of a republic.

What is the exact goal of this military mission?
What does winning actually look like?
How long should we expect this to last?
How much will this cost us, the American taxpayers?
What would cause Congress to step in and change course?

Who Wins & Who Loses

Likely Winners:
- The White House & Pentagon: They keep total operational freedom without much oversight or needing new permission from Capitol Hill.
- Politicians avoiding a tough stance: Senators get to scream and yell on TV for viral social media clips, without having to put a permanent “yes” or “no” on their voting record.
Likely Losers:
- Service members and their families: They’re sent into harm’s way on an open-ended mission without a clear mandate from us, through our reps.
- Taxpayers: Open-ended military efforts quickly run up massive bills that get tucked into emergency “must-pass” spending packages.
- The American public: We’re denied a clear, open debate on the record by our elected representatives.

Publius Project Take

I won’t argue the pros and cons of fighting Iran. I’d rather focus on whether a military campaign makes strategic sense and whether it’s constitutional. It might very well be a good idea and benefit America in the long run, but we all know the way this was done is unconstitutional - just like so many Presidents before Trump.

Yet, Congress still hides behind the White House. Senators are required by the Constitution to stand up and tell the American people - on the record - whether they authorize this war, why we’re fighting it, and where the lines are drawn.

The July 30th vote wasn’t even a vote to pull troops out. It was a vote about whether to have the conversation. And then they wonder why their approval rating is like 10% right now.

So, Congress didn’t vote to authorize the war. And they didn’t vote to end the war.

They held a vote to not to talk about it. At all.

That isn’t leadership. It’s an institutional surrender of their duty.

What to Watch Next

Watch for new war-powers efforts if military actions continue to expand, if American casualties occur, or if the White House asks for additional funding. Also look out for attempts to slip spending limits or reporting rules into the upcoming annual defense budget.

2. Quietly Moving Bills: Russia & Iran Sanctions with Heavy Tariff Authority

What Happened

The Senate moved forward on a bill called the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act.

On July 28th and 29th, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (86–12 and 84–12) to skip past procedural delays and advance the package.

To do this, the Senate used a shortcut: they took H.R. 5334, a bill originally written about tax deductions for early-childhood teachers, erased its contents, and swapped in the sanction’s language.

In D.C., this is called using a “legislative vehicle.” It’s legal under Senate rules, but it makes it almost impossible for an everyday citizen following along to figure out what our government’s actually doing. But isn’t it amazing what they can do, when they want to?

The package itself adds tough penalties on Russian financial networks and energy targets, expands sanctions on Iran, and grants the president the power to slap tariffs as high as 100% on foreign countries that keep buying large amounts of Russian oil and gas.

What Changed

What started as a proposal now has massive bipartisan support in the Senate.

By linking Russia and Iran together, Congress is using one big package to target two foreign adversaries while handing the President more sweeping authority over international trade tariffs.

The House won’t take this up until they return from their month off in September. I know, it’s not a “month off,” it’s a district work month. Sure it is.

Why It Matters

You’ll hear people talk about how sanctions are a harmless alternative to war, and in many ways they are, but they still carry real costs.

Direct sanctions target foreign banks or officials. Secondary sanctions go after third-party countries, like India or China, who keep doing business with them.

The tariff part of this bill hits us here at home. Because tariffs aren’t just paid by foreign governments; they’re taxes paid by us as we import goods at our ports. Those costs always trickle right down to everyday consumer prices at the store.

On top of that, Congress is handing broad authority to the president to decide who gets hit with tariffs, who gets a free pass (waivers), and how the rules are applied. Once again, Congress is passing off its constitutional responsibilities on foreign trade to the White House.

Who Wins & Who Loses

Likely Winners:
- Sanctions advocates: Gives the U.S. stronger leverage against Russia and Iran.
- The White House: Gains major new authorities over global trade and foreign relations.
Likely Losers:
- American importers and shoppers: High tariffs will likely drive up the cost of everyday goods, tools, and industrial supplies.
- U.S. Exporters: Foreign nations hit with tariffs often retaliate by placing taxes or bans on American farm products and manufactured exports.

Publius Project Take

This is just another area where Congress avoids responsibility and defers to the President. The Constitution requires Congress to regulate foreign trade and set sanctions, when necessary. And it should use that power when national security calls for it. But lawmakers shouldn’t write broad laws, pass all the tough decisions over to the president, and then act surprised when that president’s power grows stronger and more out of control.

Any real sanctions package needs clear rules, public explanations for every waiver granted, hard expiration dates so Congress has to re-evaluate them, and an honest assessment of what these tariffs will cost everyday American families.

And frankly, we shouldn’t have to decode a bill that was supposed to be about pre-K teachers only to find out our government is setting foreign trade policy with it.

What to Watch Next

Look for debate over limits on presidential waivers before final passage. Watch how the House handles the bill when they return on August 31st. They can accept the Senate’s version, change it, or park it in a committee somewhere.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending: Congress Reaches for Another Budget Autopilot Switch

What Happened

Congress is laying the groundwork for another Continuing Resolution (CR); a temporary spending bill that keeps federal funding on autopilot when lawmakers fail to pass a regular budget.

The House passed its version (H.R. 9770) on July 21st to extend current spending levels through December 4th.
The Senate is prepping its own version (using H.R. 6500 as the vehicle) with a key procedural vote set for Monday, August 3rd.

For clarity’s sake: Congress is supposed to pass 12 individual spending bills every year to fund the government. So far, the House has passed only three, and the Senate has passed zero.

What Changed

Capitol Hill has, once again, given up on finishing the annual budget before the fiscal year ends on September 30th. Their entire focus has pivoted to avoiding a shutdown.

Setting a December 4th deadline pushes the next big spending fight past the coming midterm elections. Which means, it saves politicians from having a messy budget fight right before we cast our vote, and it delays every single tough decision until early winter.

Why It Matters

A government shutdown creates chaos for federal workers, military families, and public services. Avoiding one is necessary. But relying on temporary patches year after year is a terrible way to run our country.

When Congress uses a CR, it’s a recognition of their failure to do their constitutional duty:

No oversight: Bad programs will just keep getting paid automatically.
No adjustments: High-priority or urgent needs don’t get the proper funding they probably need because money is locked into last year’s priorities.
No long-term planning: Military leaders and local projects are left in limbo, unable to start new efforts because they don’t know what their budget will be in three months.

A CR is supposed to be an emergency tool. But in D.C., it’s just another day.

Who Wins & Who Loses

Likely Winners:
- Incumbent politicians: They dodge a risky budget fight right before election day.
- Wasteful programs: Outdated spending stays funded without anyone looking closely at the receipts.
Likely Losers:
- Taxpayers: Money keeps flowing to ineffective programs without an audit or review.
- Military and agency planners: Forced to operate quarter-to-quarter instead of building solid long-term plans.

Publius Project Take

Keeping the lights on is hardly a heroic achievement; it’s the bare minimum requirement of the job.

Lawmakers know when the fiscal year ends. It’s the same day every year. They know 12 spending bills are required, and they had 12 months to do the work. Instead, they are pushing the deadline down the road - again.

Like I said before, a CR isn’t a substitute for doing the job - it’s written proof that you failed. It’s been 30 years since Congress last successfully passed all 12 spending bills prior to the end of the fiscal year.

30 YEARS!

Now the question is, will we fail to hold them accountable - again?

What to Watch Next

Watch the Senate’s procedural vote on Monday, August 3rd. Look closely at the “anomalies,” the special side-deals and funding exceptions lawmakers try to sneak into the temporary bill behind closed doors.

4. The House Floor: Gone Until August 31st

The House of Representatives has left Washington for its annual August recess. While they will host brief, empty “pro forma” sessions (where a lone representative taps the gavel to fulfill a technical rule), no real legislative work or votes are scheduled until August 31st.

Members of Congress are supposed to spend August back home listening to the people they represent. But the timing is tough to swallow:

U.S. troops are involved in military actions overseas without a fresh vote.
9 of the 12 regular budget bills aren’t finished.
A temporary funding patch is sliding through the Senate.

When House members return on August 31st, they’ll have only a few working weeks to deal with government funding before the September 30th deadline. So, expect a rush of last-minute deals cooked up behind closed doors.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties: Anthony Fauci Invokes the Fifth Amendment

What Happened

Former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29th. During his testimony, Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, declining to answer specific questions from lawmakers.

In response, Committee Chairman Rand Paul announced that the committee will meet on August 5th to consider a resolution holding Fauci in contempt of Congress.

What Changed

This dispute has shifted from a policy debate over COVID-19 decisions into a constitutional showdown over congressional power and individual rights.

Congress wants answers about pandemic policies, virus research grants, and internal communications. Fauci’s legal team believes answering those questions could open their client up to legal prosecution.

Now Congress has to navigate a tough legal line: did Fauci make a valid constitutional claim, or did he unlawfully refuse to cooperate?

Why It Matters

Millions of Americans want straight answers about decisions that altered schools, small businesses, livelihoods, and daily life during the pandemic. Oversight is a core duty of Congress.

However, constitutional rights don’t vanish just because a witness is controversial.

Taking the Fifth isn’t an admission of guilt under the law. It simply means an individual is using their constitutional right to avoid providing statements that could be used against them in a criminal court.

If Congress cares more about getting the full truth for the public record than keeping a potential prosecution alive, it has a clear constitutional tool: granting immunity.

Granting legal immunity prevents a witness’s answers from being used against them in court, which legally removes their ability to claim the Fifth and forces them to testify.

Congress has to make a choice:

Do they want public answers and transparency?
Or do they want to preserve the option for criminal prosecution?

Who Wins & Who Loses

Likely Winners:
- Politicians looking for headlines: A contempt vote makes for dramatic news clips, regardless of the legal outcome.
Likely Losers:
- The American public: When witnesses take the Fifth and Congress responds with political theater, real answers get buried.
- Constitutional rights: If Congress treats invoking a constitutional right as automatic proof of guilt, it sets a dangerous precedent that could be used against any citizen down the road.

Publius Project Take

The public deserves to know what happened during the pandemic. How decisions were made, by whom, and for what reasons - complete transparency.

But that doesn’t mean an American citizen should be stripped of their constitutional rights. I was back and forth on this last week, because I felt like an employee of the people should be compelled to provide answers, but I also know that the true test of a free republic isn’t how we treat constitutional rights when they protect a specific person, but it’s how we respect them when they protect every person.

If Senators believe Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth was legally invalid, they need to prove why for each specific question. If getting the full story on the record matters most, they should offer immunity and compel the testimony.

Congressional oversight should be relentless. But it must always stay within the bounds of the Constitution.

What to Watch Next

Watch the committee’s August 5th business meeting. Pay attention to whether the contempt resolution deals with specific legal points or relies on broad political claims.

6. What to Watch Next Week

Monday, August 3rd: The Senate holds its first vote on the temporary spending bill. Watch for extra funding requests attached to the bill.
Wednesday, August 5th: The Senate Homeland Security Committee meets to vote on the Fauci contempt resolution.
Sanctions Watch: Senate floor debates over presidential power and tariffs in the Russia/Iran bill.
August Recess: Watch whether local representatives host open town halls in their districts during the recess to explain their votes to constituents.

Subscribe now

7. The Bottom Line

This week proved once again that Congress can move fast when it wants to - to pass sanctions, expand executive powers, or avoid a shutdown.

What it consistently fails to do is take responsibility.

The Senate voted to not even talk about an ongoing military conflict.
Lawmakers advanced a trade bill that passes broad tariff powers over to the White House.
Congress cooked up another temporary funding patch because it failed to pass an actual budget on time.
And the House packed its bags with major issues left hanging in the air.

Power gets used. Responsibility gets delayed.

That is how a representative republic slowly slips into government by executive order, backroom leadership deals, and last-minute emergency panic.

Congress doesn’t need more power. It needs the backbone to use the authority it already has - and be accountable for the results.

8. Sources & Further Reading

U.S. Senate: Roll-call vote on the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 181 (Iran War Powers).
U.S. Senate Proceedings: Votes and amendments on H.R. 5334 (Sanctions Vehicle).
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Status report on FY2027 appropriations and Continuing Resolutions.
U.S. House of Representatives: Official August 2026 legislative calendar.
Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee: August 5 agenda and hearing records.
Constitution Annotated: Fifth Amendment privileges regarding congressional subpoenas and witness testimony.

Restoration Paper No. 14

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:01:51 GMT

To My Fellow Americans,

America’s founders gave us a strong President. What they didn’t do, quite intentionally, was give us an all-powerful one.

The job is actually pretty simple. Execute laws, run the executive branch, defend the country, handle diplomacy, and act fast when an actual emergency calls for it.

Did you notice what’s not on the list? Making laws. The responsibility was left to Congress alone.

Sure, a president pitches ideas, pushes for a particular policy, negotiates with lawmakers, and even vetoes legislation. But once something actually becomes a law, the job is to execute it. Not ignore it, rewrite it on the fly, or swap it out with something the White House likes better.

Over the decades, we’ve slowly talked ourselves into accepting a completely different paradigm.

We’ve accepted candidates that promise to personally fix healthcare, control prices, cut spending, rebuild the economy, and single-handedly solve every other problem in our lives. And we buy into the promises anyway, knowing full well they don’t have the power to do everything they pledge; and in the process, we let the presidency run us instead of us running it.

And that’s how we got here. We have a presidency that acts more like a one-person lawmaking machine instead of a responsible manager overseeing our executive branch.

Subscribe now

The Most Powerful Office in the Country

President Washington saw this very trap coming on his way out the door. He warned us about “the spirit of encroachment;” that slow, quiet tendency of one branch trying to take over the functions of the others, until everything ends up under one roof.

Simply put, when one branch starts doing everybody else’s job, our republic is in trouble.

Just look around today. Every four years, candidates stand on a stage and make grand promises about things they don’t have the legal right to do on their own. And most of us don’t even call them out anymore. We’re so used to presidents setting their own rules and acting like kings that we get angry when they can’t deliver. But if we’re honest with ourselves, that’s on us. We allowed the expectations to shift.

While digging around and researching this, it’s clear a lot of us either forgot what we were taught in school or were never really taught it in the first place: the separation of powers isn’t just a trivia fact. It’s the only reason we don’t have a king or single ruler of any kind.

The President’s Actual Job

So, I’ll break it down.

Congress writes the laws. The President carries them out. The Courts ensure both sides stay inside their Constitutional lanes. And that’s it. That’s the entire system.

Now, Article II of the Constitution does provide some clear, independent powers, particularly in the areas of managing federal agencies, appointing officers, directing foreign policy, and commanding the military. But even those powers aren’t blank checks. Even those powers are checked by the Senate.

Don’t let some academic or political commentator confuse the issue with fancy jargon. They love making this sound more complicated than it is, but that truly is the system.

The president’s job is ensuring the laws are enforced honestly, competently, and consistently. And that power isn’t a political convenience tool either. The President doesn’t get to stretch, bend, or ignore a law just because he or she feels like it.

Think of the President as the CEO of our company, and us, the citizens, are the board of directors.

Strong Doesn’t Mean Unlimited

Now before anyone pushes back on the “CEO” analogy, I’ll clarify what the Founders were trying to do.

They clearly didn’t want another king. They’d lived in that world and just fought a war to be rid of one. But after living under the Articles of Confederation, where the national government was so weak it couldn’t even pay its own bills or keep order, they knew we needed a real leader. They understood that we needed an executive who could act with speed, discipline, and decisiveness when the situation called for it.

That is what Alexander Hamilton meant in Federalist No. 70 when he wrote that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.”

But “energetic” doesn’t mean “unlimited.”

Think about it this way.

Suppose a massive fire breaks out in town. We’d want the fire chief to take control immediately, wouldn’t we? We don’t want him waiting three hours for a committee meeting while half the town burns down.

But that fire doesn’t suddenly give him the authority to rewrite the building code, raise taxes, seize local businesses, or declare himself mayor. He’s got authority to fight the fire because that’s his job. What he can’t do is run the whole town.

The presidency works the same way. The president needs enough power to act quickly and effectively when necessary, but that power still sits inside the Constitutional fence. “Energy” is about how the President does the job; it doesn’t erase the limits of the job itself.

Subscribe now

The Rise of the One-Person Lawmaker

Now, over the years, presidents have pushed that fence further and further; far past anything the Founders anticipated.

Our presidents use executive orders to force huge policy changes that Congress never passed and, in many cases, specifically refused to pass. Now, executive orders, on their face, aren’t automatically bad or unconstitutional. Presidents obviously need a way to manage the executive branch and to tell federal employees how to execute the laws Congress passes. The problem is when an order stretches an existing law so far that it starts looking like an entirely new law.

In addition to executive orders, federal agencies issue thousands of rules that have the practical force of law for ordinary Americans and businesses. And to be fair, some of those rules deal with technical details Congress specifically authorized an agency to handle. But plenty of others address major political, economic, and social questions that our elected representatives didn’t have the courage to decide themselves.

Then there are presidential emergency powers.

Temporary emergency declarations stay active for years, sometimes decades. We literally still have national emergencies connected to the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, weapons-of-mass-destruction proliferation in 1994, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At some point, we have to admit that any emergency lasting thirty or forty years isn’t really an emergency anymore; it’s just a loophole.

We see it with funding too. Presidents have redirected taxpayer money in ways Congress never approved. We saw it with Donald Trump’s border-wall funding, Barack Obama’s handling of portions of the Affordable Care Act, and Joe Biden’s attempts at student-loan cancellation. Different presidents. Different parties. Different policies. Same abuse of power.

Throw in signing statements, agency “guidance,” broad waivers, selective enforcement policies, creative interpretations of old statutes, and we get an entirely new system where laws are totally reshaped without a single vote being cast. Sometimes whole sections of laws are set aside under the broad umbrella of “enforcement discretion.”

Even our military operations follow this blueprint now. What starts as a quick, limited response turns into a years-long conflict without Congress ever putting its name on an official declaration.

As I’ve written in previous Restoration Papers, none of this happened overnight. It happened piece by piece, administration after administration. Each president inherited the tools left behind by the last one, used them a little more aggressively, and almost always finds a few new tools to add to the box.

And Congress? Most of the time, Congress just sits back and lets it happen.

Congress Built This Problem

Let’s be honest: Congress helped create this monster.

For decades, lawmakers have passed enormous, vague bills filled with broad phrases such as “protect the public interest,” “ensure fair competition,” or “promote public safety.” Then they hand the legislation to federal agencies and tell unelected bureaucrats to figure it out.

It’s a pretty sweet arrangement for politicians. They get to hold a press conference and claim credit for “doing something.” Later, when an agency rule drives up prices, kills local jobs, or makes life miserable for small businesses, those same lawmakers flip around, point at the President and pretend to be just as outraged as the rest of us.

It might be good politics, but it’s terrible governance.

We should always be able to answer three basic questions about any rule that governs our lives: Who made the rule? Who voted for it? Can I vote them out if I disagree?

When the answer’s an unnamed agency official working off vague language Congress passed decades ago, representative government isn’t working the way it should. The president didn’t simply steal all of this power; Congress handed it over on a silver platter because they were too afraid to make the hard decisions themselves.

And what’s worse? We let them do it.

What About Gridlock?

Now, this is usually where someone jumps in with the standard counter-argument.

“Look, Congress is broken. Nothing gets done. The world moves too fast, and we can’t just sit around doing nothing while the country faces serious problems.”

I understand the frustration and sometimes even share it.

Watching Congress argue, posture, stall, and dodge responsibility drives nearly everybody crazy. But our frustration doesn’t change the Constitution, and the fact that passing a law is difficult doesn’t mean the president gets to jump the line and do it on his/her own.

I’ll acknowledge that sometimes a proposal fails because Congress is dysfunctional. Absolutely. But sometimes it fails because the country is truly divided and there’s no genuine agreement about what to do.

When 330 million people are split down the middle on an issue, the answer isn’t to let one person decide for everyone. The answer is to do the hard work of making the case, persuading people, compromising, and building a true consensus.

Yes, that process is slow, messy, and maddening, but it’s supposed to be.

That difficulty – that slow, methodical method of passing national laws protects us from those emotional, temporary majorities or overly ambitious presidents who believe their cause is so important that it justifies steamrolling over everyone.

And let’s be honest; if you can’t get a real majority together on something, maybe that’s a sign the issue shouldn’t be at the national level in the first place. Maybe it belongs with the states, where different communities can try different solutions instead of forcing one umbrella rule over the whole country.

We have to remember that gridlock isn’t always proof the system is failing. Sometimes that gridlock is the system working perfectly.

Subscribe now

Defending the Boundaries

People have accused me more than once that I’m suggesting to run the country like it’s 1787 again.

I know the world has changed and I’m not trying to go back to 1787. The Founders obviously could’ve never imagined smartphones, nuclear weapons, drones, artificial intelligence, cyberwarfare, or global financial markets running 24/7.

But they did understand human nature. They understood power, ambition, and fear. And most importantly, they understood how quickly scared people will hand over their freedom to anyone promising to make them safe and fix things.

Modern problems might require faster execution, and the Constitution already gives the president considerable power to handle immediate, real-time emergencies. But reacting to a sudden crisis isn’t the same as inventing permanent regulations for entire industries, shifting billions around without approval, or rewriting immigration rules with a sharpie because Congress wouldn’t do what you wanted.

Then there’s the most dangerous excuse of all:

“The other side will abuse power when they get control, so we better use it first, use it faster, and use more of it.”

That’s another race to the bottom. Every president pushes things a little further and sets new precedents. Every party screams about the abuse when they’re out of power but magically discovers a new appreciation for it once they get the power back.

Where does that road end? Well it ends with something far worse than an elected president.

It ends with a ruler.

We have to remember that if limits only matter when the other party’s in power, they aren’t real limits. They’re simply temporary political conveniences.

What Restoration Looks Like

Putting the presidency back in it’s constitutional cage is how we restore the limited executive we were promised. It doesn’t mean wrecking it or putting the nation at risk, it just means putting it back where it belongs.

Executive orders should direct the executive branch and explain how existing laws will be carried out. They shouldn’t impose new legal obligations on us unless Congress explicitly agrees.
Federal agencies should work out technical details, but major political and economic issues need actual votes in Congress.
Emergency powers should automatically expire unless Congress openly debates and extends them.
Taxpayer money shouldn’t be spent or redirected unless specifically authorized by Congress.
Guidance documents should be just that - guidance, and never turned into backdoor laws enforced through threats and penalties.
Enforcement discretion should be used for individual, unusual cases or when resources are limited - not as loopholes to ignore whole sections of laws.
Military operations shouldn’t run on autopilot for years without Congress putting its vote on the record.

None of this creates a weak presidency; just an accountable one.

A Simple Test

If you wan to check for yourself to see if a President has taken things too far, try this test:

Think of a presidential action or executive order you strongly support right now.

Now imagine that exact same power in the hands of a politician you trust the least, aimed directly at something you care deeply about.

Do you still support the power? Not the policy. The power itself. Would you be comfortable letting the other side keep it?

If the answer is no, then the answer is also very clear. If a power only feels safe when “your guy” has it, then it’s a power no president should have - ever.

Constitutional limits have to apply to everyone. Every president. Every party. Every time. Otherwise, they aren’t limits at all.

The Bottom Line

The president isn’t our ruler, our national boss, or our collective therapist.

The president is a public servant with a defined job, specific powers, a limited term, and a duty to enforce laws he or she didn’t write.

We don’t want or need a powerless presidency. We need a constitutional one. And we won’t get it until we, the voters, stop demanding that presidential candidates promise to solve every problem in our lives. We have to stop rewarding candidates for promising powers the office doesn’t have and start demanding they respect the boundaries the Constitution set.

Congress decides. The president executes.

That’s not a weak executive. That’s a free republic.

In Liberty,
Gary Mullins (Libertas)

The People's Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:29:49 GMT

Week Ending July 25, 2026

Subscribe now

So this past week, Congress spent its final voting period before its regular August recess doing what they always do:

Passing massive bills that shove all kinds of unrelated policies into one take-it-or-leave-it package.

The House approved a $1.15 trillion defense bill with national election rules attached. It passed a congressional stock-trading bill with another voter-identification measure added to the end. It pushed most of the federal budget past Election Day while opening the door to another $95 billion in fast-track spending.

Then they voted to tell the president to end unauthorized military action against Iran. Meanwhile, the Senate rejected a similar effort a little more than an hour later.

After all that, House members left town for the next month.

Here is everything that happened in our name last week.

1. Biggest Story of the Week: The $1.15 Trillion Defense Bill Became an Election Bill

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, by a vote of 216–212.

The vote was almost entirely along party lines. The bill received support from 209 Republicans, six Democrats, and one independent. Seven Republicans joined 205 Democrats in voting against it.

The bill authorizes approximately $1.15 trillion for national defense.

The NDAA doesn’t hand over all that money by itself. It gives Congress’s approval for military programs, troop levels, weapons purchases, construction projects, and other defense policies. Separate appropriations bills are still required before most of that money can actually be spent.

What Changed

House leaders didn’t send the defense bill to the Senate by itself.

The rule governing debate instructed the House clerk to attach the text of the SAVE America Act to the final House version after the defense bill passed.

In D.C. terms, the clerk was told to add it during “engrossment,” which is the process of preparing the official version that leaves the House and goes to the Senate.

The attached election package would create new federal rules involving proof of citizenship, voter identification, and ballots cast outside traditional polling places.

Those election rules weren’t part of the defense bill approved by the Armed Services Committee. They were added through a separate procedural rule shortly before the final House vote.

The NDAA itself includes military pay increases, weapons and equipment purchases, housing and barracks construction, support for operations involving Iran, and expanded defense cooperation with Israel and other foreign partners.

Why It Matters

The National Defense Authorization Act is considered a “must-pass” bill.

Members who vote against it can be accused of opposing military pay, troop readiness, national security, or support for servicemembers.

That makes the NDAA one of the most valuable vehicles in Washington. Leaders can attach policies that might not survive a clean vote and dare members to oppose the entire defense bill.

A member may support proof of citizenship but oppose spending $1.15 trillion.

Another may support the defense bill but believe federal election rules should be debated separately.

Neither member received that choice.

They were given one vote covering both.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Military personnel receiving pay and benefit increases would benefit. Defense contractors, weapons manufacturers, construction companies, and research institutions would compete for hundreds of billions of dollars in authorized programs. Supporters of national voter-identification and proof-of-citizenship rules moved those policies one step closer to the Senate without having to pass another clean election bill. House leadership also showed that it can use a must-pass defense package to carry other parts of its agenda.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers would ultimately be responsible for the largest national-defense authorization in American history. States could lose some control over how they administer federal elections if the attached election provisions become law. Rank-and-file lawmakers lost the ability to vote separately on defense spending and election rules. The public also lost a clean record showing where each representative actually stood on each issue.

Publius Project Take

Providing for the common defense is one of the federal government’s clearest constitutional duties. I support a strong military, and I agree that our troops deserve proper pay, safe housing, working equipment, and leaders who don’t send them into combat without a clear mission.

But “supporting the troops” can’t be a magic phrase that ends every discussion about cost, strategy, or constitutional authority.

A $1.15 trillion authorization has to be examined line by line. Congress should have to explain where the increase is going, why it’s necessary, what threats it addresses, and what taxpayers should expect in return.

And obviously, election integrity matters too. I agree that only eligible American citizens should vote in our elections. Proof of citizenship and reasonable identification rules deserve a serious debate.

But they don’t belong inside the defense bill. A defense bill should defend the country. An election bill should govern elections. Combining the two allows lawmakers to support one and hide behind the other.

The standard should be simple:

One subject. One bill. One honest vote.

What to Watch for Next

Watch what the Senate does with the election provisions this week.

The Senate hasn’t yet begun debating its own $1.15 trillion defense bill. An earlier attempt to move forward received 50 votes but needed 60, and Majority Leader John Thune later withdrew his motion to proceed.

The Senate could:

Remove the SAVE America Act entirely;
Rewrite the election provisions;
Reduce or increase the defense authorization;
Add new restrictions involving Iran;
Change foreign-assistance and military-cooperation provisions; or
Refuse to take up the House bill at all.

The House and Senate must eventually pass the same text before the NDAA can reach the president.

That fight is far from over.

2. Quietly Moving Bills: The Congressional Stock-Trading “Ban” That Wasn’t Quite a Ban

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, by a vote of 232–198.

Every Republican supported it, along with 13 Democrats and one independent. Most Democrats opposed the final version.

The bill would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing new individual stocks, options, and similar investments while the member remains in office.

It would take effect 180 days after becoming law.

What Changed

The bill would stop covered members and family members from buying new individual stocks.

It would NOT require them to sell the stocks they already own.

They could continue holding those investments and could sell them after publicly announcing the planned sale at least seven, but no more than 14, days in advance.

Violators could face a penalty of at least $2,000 or 10% of the transaction’s value, whichever is greater. They could also be required to surrender any profit earned from a prohibited investment.

The restrictions would apply to members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children.

They would not apply to the president, vice president, cabinet members, federal judges, or senior executive-branch officials.

The House also added an unrelated section requiring photo identification in federal elections. It includes rules for both in-person voting and ballots cast by mail or another method.

Why It Matters

Members of Congress receive classified briefings, meet privately with regulators and business leaders, write tax laws, approve government contracts, and make decisions that can move entire industries.

Even when no crime occurs, buying and selling individual stocks under those circumstances creates an obvious conflict of interest.

The public can’t know whether a trade was based on ordinary research or information unavailable to everyone else.

But the bill’s title promises more than the text delivers.

It limits new purchases. It doesn’t force members to get rid of existing investments or place them into blind trusts.

And once again, House leaders tied an unrelated election proposal to a bill that was supposed to address government ethics.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: The public would gain at least some protection against members buying individual stocks while serving in office. Members who already own large stock portfolios would also benefit because they could keep those investments and sell them later. Supporters of federal voter-identification requirements gained another vehicle for advancing their election agenda.
Likely Losers: Members who actively purchase individual stocks would lose that ability while in office. Lawmakers seeking a clean, bipartisan ethics bill lost the opportunity to vote on the stock restrictions by themselves. Public trust may also lose if citizens conclude that Congress passed a carefully written loophole and called it a ban.

Publius Project Take

Members of Congress shouldn’t be trading individual stocks while receiving information and exercising power that ordinary investors don’t have.

That rule should also apply to senior executive officials, the president, vice president, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and anyone else with access to market-moving government information.

H.R. 7008 is a step, but it’s not a full ban.

A real reform would require covered officials to sell their individual stocks within a reasonable period or place them into a genuine blind trust they can’t control.

Allowing members to keep everything they already own leaves the underlying conflict in place.

The voter-identification language should also be removed and debated separately.

The fact that I may support a policy doesn’t mean I support hiding it inside an unrelated bill.

Congressional ethics shouldn’t be used as political bait to carry election rules through the House.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether the Senate takes up the bill at all.

Senators could strengthen it by requiring members to sell existing stocks or use blind trusts.

They could expand it to cover the president, vice president, senior executive officials, and federal judges.

They could also remove the voter-identification language in an effort to rebuild bipartisan support.

The biggest question is whether Congress genuinely wants to eliminate conflicts of interest or simply wants to get credit for passing something called a stock-trading ban before the midterm election.

Subscribe now

3. Money and Spending: Congress Put the Budget on Autopilot and Opened Another $95 Billion Door

What Happened

The House made two major spending decisions last week.

First, it passed H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2027, by a vote of 220–205.

The bill would keep most of the federal government operating under temporary funding through December 4, 2026.

Second, the House approved H. Con. Res. 113 by a vote of 216–214.

That budget resolution starts the process for another reconciliation bill containing as much as $95 billion in new spending and election-related programs.

What Changed

The continuing resolution would carry much of the government’s current funding forward after the fiscal year ends on September 30th and push the deadline to December 4th, well after the midterm election.

It would also temporarily extend programs including SNAP, WIC, TANF, National Flood Insurance, wildfire suppression, disaster relief, and certain small-business and agricultural programs.

That means Congress could avoid final votes on most of the federal budget until voters have already gone to the polls.

At the same time, the new budget resolution gives congressional committees instructions to begin building another package containing up to:

$60 billion for the Pentagon;
$13 billion for intelligence and other national-security needs;
$12 billion in agricultural assistance; and
$10 billion for election-related programs.

The resolution doesn’t spend that money by itself. It creates the fast-track process Congress would use to write and pass the final package.

The current framework doesn’t include direct spending cuts to cover the proposed $95 billion.

Why It Matters

Congress is doing two seemingly opposite things at the same time.

It’s saying there isn’t enough agreement to finish the regular federal budget before September 30th.

But it’s also creating a special process to move another $95 billion for military operations, intelligence programs, farm assistance, and election rules.

The twelve regular spending bills are supposed to let Congress examine each department separately.

A continuing resolution largely freezes the existing system, including programs Congress might otherwise reduce, reform, or eliminate.

Reconciliation does the opposite. It allows selected priorities to move through a faster process that can avoid a Senate filibuster.

Regular government goes on autopilot.

Leadership’s preferred priorities get the fast lane.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Federal agencies would avoid an immediate shutdown and continue receiving money. Recipients of food assistance, disaster aid, flood insurance, and other extended programs would avoid a sudden interruption. Congressional leaders would gain more time to negotiate the final budget behind closed doors. Lawmakers would also avoid many difficult spending votes before facing voters in November. The Pentagon, intelligence agencies, agricultural interests, and states accepting election grants could benefit from the separate $95 billion package if Congress eventually passes it.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers would continue funding programs largely at last year’s levels without a full review. Rank-and-file members would lose much of their ability to debate and amend individual department budgets. The regular appropriations process would be delayed again. Voters would lose the chance to judge many of their representatives’ final spending decisions before the election.

Publius Project Take

Keeping the government open matters. Federal workers, military families, veterans, and ordinary citizens shouldn’t be punished because Congress failed to their job, yet again.

A continuing resolution is an admission of failure; nothing else.

Lawmakers knew the fiscal year ended on September 30th. They knew there were twelve spending bills to pass. They knew the disagreements were coming. The deadline did not sneak up on anyone.

Congress also can’t claim there’s no time to finish the regular budget while finding time to create another $95 billion side package.

That’s not a shortage of time; it’s a choice about priorities.

Congress should stay in session until the appropriations bills are finished.

No extended recess. No pushing the hardest votes beyond Election Day. No giant year-end package dropped on members hours before a shutdown deadline.

Do the work. Put every member on the record. Let the public see the votes.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether the Senate accepts the December 4th funding deadline.

The Senate could pass the House bill, amend it, shorten the extension, or replace it with a different funding plan.

Also watch the $95 billion reconciliation framework.

The House and Senate must approve the same budget resolution before the special process can move forward. Senate Republicans have already raised concerns about the cost and whether election-policy provisions qualify under reconciliation rules.

Even if the Senate agrees, committees must still write the actual legislation.

The greatest details, including the exact war funding, grant requirements, farm payments, and any spending offsets, haven’t yet been settled.

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

Nothing. The House Left Town.

Normally, this section previews three bills scheduled for House consideration.

This week, there are none.

The official House calendar lists no legislative days between July 23 and August 31. Members may still hold brief pro forma sessions, committee work, or district events, but no regular House floor votes are scheduled.

That means the House left Washington with several major matters unfinished.

Unfinished Business No. 1: The Federal Budget

The House only passed three of the twelve full-year appropriations bills needed to fund the government.

Instead of finishing the remaining bills, it passed temporary funding through December 4th and took off for its August break.

Publius Project Take

Congress shouldn’t take a month-long break while its most basic constitutional responsibility remains unfinished.

District work is important. Members should spend time with the people they represent.

But they should finish the budget first.

Unfinished Business No. 2: The Iran War

The House voted to oppose unauthorized military action in Iran, but it hasn’t passed a formal authorization approving the conflict or a binding law ending it.

It also opened the door to tens of billions of dollars in additional military funding.

Publius Project Take

Congress can’t fund a war, authorize equipment for a war, and then pretend it has nothing to do with the war.

Members should vote clearly:

Authorize it - or end it.

Anything in between is political cowardice.

Unfinished Business No. 3: The Defense Bill

The House passed its version of the NDAA, but the Senate hasn’t advanced its own version.

The two chambers must still agree on defense spending, election provisions, foreign commitments, Iran policy, and hundreds of other differences.

Publius Project Take

A $1.15 trillion defense bill shouldn’t be settled behind closed doors by a handful of negotiators while most members are home campaigning.

The final agreement should be released publicly with enough time for citizens and lawmakers to read it.

What to Watch for Next

Watch the committees.

Even while the House floor is quiet, committee staff can continue drafting the reconciliation package, negotiating appropriations, and preparing changes to the defense bill.

Also watch whether House leaders call members back early if the Senate changes the temporary funding bill or another crisis develops.

For now, however, the people’s House has stopped voting.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties and Constitutional Power: The House Said End the Iran War. The Senate Said No.

What Happened

The House passed H. Con. Res. 89 by a vote of 214–208.

The resolution directed the president to remove American forces from hostilities against Iran that Congress hadn’t authorized.

All voting Democrats supported it. Four Republicans joined them.

A little more than an hour later, the Senate rejected an effort to bring up a similar joint resolution.

The Senate vote was 47–49, meaning the resolution remained stuck in the Foreign Relations Committee.

What Changed

Politically, the House put a majority on record saying the Iran conflict shouldn’t continue without congressional authorization.

Legally, the vote didn’t end the war.

H. Con. Res. 89 was a concurrent resolution, which isn’t sent to the president and doesn’t have the ordinary force of law. The White House described the measure as legally unenforceable, while its supporters treated it as an assertion of Congress’s constitutional war powers.

The Senate resolution would have followed a different path as a joint resolution, but senators didn’t allow it to move out of committee.

The result is a divided Congress:

The House voted to end unauthorized hostilities.

The Senate refused to advance the same demand.

Why It Matters

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the president.

The president commands the armed forces and may respond to immediate threats.

Congress decides whether the country goes to war, provides the money, establishes military rules, and has the power to end funding.

That division is supposed to prevent one person from taking the country into a prolonged conflict without public debate or legislative approval.

When Congress refuses to vote, the balance breaks down.

Presidents continue military operations.

Lawmakers continue approving the money.

And everyone avoids taking full responsibility for the war itself.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: The executive branch retains broad freedom to continue military operations because Congress failed to send the president a binding measure. House members opposing the war gained a recorded vote they can point to. Members who support the conflict without wanting to authorize it also benefited because no final authorization vote was required.
Likely Losers: Congress’s institutional power weakened again. American servicemembers remain involved in a conflict without a clear congressional authorization defining the mission, limits, or desired end state. Taxpayers continue paying for military operations without a separate vote approving the war. The public remains unable to see whether Congress actually supports the conflict or merely lacks the courage to stop it.

Publius Project Take

They’re making this too damn complicated.

If Congress believes the war with Iran is necessary, it should pass an authorization stating:

Why the United States is fighting;
What military force may be used;
Where that force may be used;
What the mission is;
How long the authorization lasts; and
What conditions would end it.

If Congress doesn’t believe the war is necessary, then it should cut off the authority and funding.

What Congress can’t do is complain about presidential power while continuing to pay for the military campaign.

I do not support this war.

But even lawmakers who do support it should demand a formal vote.

War is the most serious decision a government can make. It should never run on implication, inertia, or political fear.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether lawmakers introduce another binding joint resolution.

Also watch the defense and spending bills.

Congress may avoid passing a formal war authorization while quietly placing the money, weapons, and operational authorities needed for the conflict into larger legislation.

The real test won’t be what members say during interviews.

It will be whether they vote to authorize the war, vote to end it, or continue funding it without doing either.

6. What to Watch Next Week

1. The Senate Returns. The House Doesn’t.

The Senate returns Monday afternoon, while the House remains away.

The Senate’s first scheduled vote concerns the nomination of Walter Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence. Majority Leader Thune has withdrawn his attempt to begin the defense bill and shifted the immediate schedule toward nominations and other legislation.

2. The Defense Bill Stays Stuck

Watch for negotiations over the $1.15 trillion NDAA.

The Senate must decide whether to revive its own bill, take up the House version, or wait until members return from the August break.

The SAVE America Act rider will be one of the largest obstacles.

3. Temporary Government Funding

Watch whether the Senate begins acting on the House bill funding the government through December 4th.

Any Senate change would require another House vote, which could force members to return to Washington before August 31st.

4. The $95 Billion Reconciliation Plan

Watch whether Senate Republicans agree to the House budget resolution.

Without Senate approval, the fast-track process can’t move forward.

Even with approval, election provisions could be removed if the Senate parliamentarian (rules referee) determines they don’t have enough connection to federal spending or revenue.

5. The Congressional Stock-Trading Bill

Watch whether senators try to turn the House proposal into a genuine ban.

The biggest questions are whether existing stock holdings must be sold, whether blind trusts will be required, and whether senior officials outside Congress will be covered.

6. Iran War Funding

Watch the money.

Even if Congress doesn’t vote on a formal authorization, the cost of military operations will appear in the defense bill, the reconciliation package, emergency requests, or the final federal budget.

That is where members may quietly vote to continue the war.

Subscribe now

7. The Ledger’s Bottom Line

Congress spent its final week before the August break showing us exactly why so many Americans no longer trust any of them.

Election rules were attached to a $1.15 trillion defense bill; because why not, right?

More election rules were attached to a congressional stock-trading bill; because nobody’s watching anyway, right?

Most of the federal budget was pushed beyond Election Day. Can’t imagine why.

Another $95 billion spending process was opened without direct cuts to pay for it.

The House voted to oppose an unauthorized war while Congress continued preparing to fund that same war.

Then members left Washington.

Every one of these subjects deserved its own debate.

National defense deserved a defense vote.

Election integrity deserved an election vote.

Congressional stock trading deserved an ethics vote.

War deserved a war vote.

The budget deserved twelve separate spending votes.

Instead, citizens received enormous packages, unrelated riders, temporary patches, and procedural shortcuts.

That’s not just messy government.

It’s a protected political class system built to hide responsibility.

For every bill, every dollar, and every new claim of government power, citizens should keep asking:

What does this bill actually do beyond its title?
What unrelated policies were added to it?
How much will it cost?
Where does the Constitution grant the authority?
Who will be held responsible when it fails?

Those aren’t Republican or Democrat questions.

They are the questions we, as free citizens, should ask anyone exercising power in our name.

Salus Populi Suprema Lex.

The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.

8. Sources and Further Reading

National Defense Authorization Act

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 278: Passage of H.R. 8800.”
H.R. 8800, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027.
House Committee on Rules, “H.R. 8800—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027.”
Congressional Research Service, “FY2027 NDAA: Summary of Funding Authorizations.”
Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 8800, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027.”
Reuters, “U.S. House Passes $1.15 Trillion Defense Bill Despite Iran and Israel Concerns.”
Associated Press, “House Votes for Department of War Renaming as Part of Annual Defense Bill.”

Congressional Stock Trading

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 280: Passage of H.R. 7008.”
H.R. 7008, Stop Insider Trading Act, engrossed House text.
House Committee on Administration, “House Passes Chairman Steil’s Stop Insider Trading Act.”
House Committee on Rules, “H.R. 7008—Stop Insider Trading Act.”
Associated Press, “House Votes to Limit Stock Trading by Members of Congress.”

Federal Spending and Reconciliation

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 272: Passage of H.R. 9770.”
H.R. 9770, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027.
House Committee on Appropriations, “House Passes H.R. 9770.”
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 281: H. Con. Res. 113.”
H. Con. Res. 113, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2027.
House Budget Committee, “House Advances Reconciliation to Support Our Troops and Secure Our Elections.”
Associated Press, “House Republicans Adopt $95 Billion Package for the Iran War and Trump’s Priorities.”

House Schedule

Office of the House Majority Leader, 2026 House Legislative Calendar.
Office of the House Majority Leader, “Weekly Schedule for the Week of July 20, 2026.”

Iran and Congressional War Powers

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 282: H. Con. Res. 89.”
H. Con. Res. 89, Directing the Removal of U.S. Forces From Unauthorized Hostilities With Iran.
U.S. Senate, “Roll Call Vote 207: Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 180.”
S.J. Res. 180, Joint Resolution Concerning Unauthorized Hostilities Against Iran.
Associated Press, “House Again Passes a Resolution Seeking to Halt Military Action in Iran.”
Reuters, “U.S. Senate Blocks Resolution Curbing Trump’s Iran War Powers.”
White House, “Statement of Administration Policy on H. Con. Res. 89.”

Senate Schedule

U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Senate Proceedings and Schedule, July 23–27, 2026.”
U.S. Senate, “Roll Call Vote 195: Motion to Proceed to S. 4784.”

The People's Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:01:11 GMT

Week Ending July 18, 2026

Subscribe now

Congress returned to Washington last week and immediately got back to doing what it does best: combining completely unrelated issues into massive, take-it-or-leave-it packages and looking for backroom shortcuts to push them through.

A House committee advanced a $95 billion plan mixing Iran-war spending, farm aid, intelligence funding, and new election rules. The Senate quietly placed another Ukraine-aid bill on its calendar. The House passed nearly $50 billion for the State Department and foreign assistance. And House leaders scheduled a temporary spending bill that would let Congress avoid finishing the federal budget until after the midterm election.

Washington was busy last week.

Whether it was doing the people’s business - or protecting its own political interests - is another question.

Here is what happened in our name.

1. Biggest Story of the Week: The $95 Billion Fast-Track Package

What Happened

The House Budget Committee approved a new federal spending framework by a party-line vote of 20–14.

Republicans are calling it “Reconciliation 3.0.”

The plan would allow congressional committees to begin writing a package containing as much as:

$60 billion for defense;
$13 billion for intelligence programs;
$12 billion for agriculture and farm assistance; and
$10 billion for election-related programs.

The framework could reach a total of $95 billion. It now heads to the full House, where leaders hope to approve it during the coming week.

Think of this like Congress approving a credit limit – it’s not the final shopping trip, but it gives congressional committees the green light to go out and write the actual checks.

What Changed

Republican leaders want to use the budget-reconciliation process to move the package through Congress.

Reconciliation is a special procedure meant for taxes, spending, and the federal debt. Unlike most Senate legislation, a reconciliation bill can pass with a simple majority instead of needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

That means the majority party may be able to pass the final package without support from the other side.

The proposed defense money would help pay for military operations involving Iran, replenish American weapons stockpiles, and cover other readiness costs.

The agriculture money would be aimed partly at farmers facing higher fuel and fertilizer prices.

The election money would provide federal grants (free money) encouraging states to adopt parts of the SAVE America Act, including photo identification at the polls, proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and greater sharing of state voter-roll information with the Department of Homeland Security.

There’s no guarantee that all of the election provisions will survive. Senate rules generally require reconciliation measures to have a real effect on the federal budget. The Senate parliamentarian (rules referee) could decide that some of the election language doesn’t qualify.

The plan also doesn’t contain direct spending cuts or other offsets covering the additional $95 billion. Supporters promise they’ll find ways to cap future regular agency spending later down the road, but right now, this new $95 billion block of cash has no actual spending cuts to pay for it.

Why It Matters

This package combines three issues that have little to do with one another:

Paying for military operations;
Helping farmers; and
Changing election rules.

Each one could involve tens of billions of dollars and major questions about federal power. But instead of debating them separately, Congress, as usual, is preparing to tie them together and move them through a process designed to avoid the Senate’s normal 60-vote requirement.

That gives lawmakers political cover.

A member who supports voter identification but opposes more war spending may be forced to accept both. Another member who wants farm assistance but opposes turning state voter information over to Homeland Security may face the same choice.

The public may never receive a clean vote on any of it.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: The Pentagon, intelligence agencies, defense contractors, farmers receiving federal assistance, and states willing to accept federal election grants would all stand to receive new money. Congressional leaders would also gain another fast-track vehicle that allows them to combine several political priorities into one package.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers would be responsible for another $95 billion unless Congress finds actual cuts elsewhere. States that reject Washington’s preferred election rules could find themselves pressured by federal grant money. Rank-and-file lawmakers - and the citizens they represent - would lose the chance to debate and vote on each major issue separately.

Publius Project Take

The Publius Project supports proof of citizenship for voter registration and reasonable voter-identification requirements. But a good policy doesn’t get better when Congress buries it inside a spending package for war and farm subsidies.

Election integrity deserves its own bill, its own debate, and its own recorded vote.

So does military spending.

If Congress believes another $60 billion is needed for operations involving Iran, it should first debate the war itself. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to decide whether the country goes to war. Lawmakers shouldn’t quietly fund an ongoing conflict while continuing to avoid a direct vote authorizing it.

Farmers facing higher costs deserve an honest discussion too. But agricultural aid shouldn’t be the political glue to hold a package together that might otherwise fall apart.

Reconciliation is supposed to help Congress settle budget matters. It shouldn’t be an all-purpose escape hatch for election law, foreign policy, and politically convenient handouts.

The standard should be simple:

One subject. One bill. One honest vote.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether House leaders can find enough Republican votes to approve the budget resolution.

Some defense hawks believe the proposed military funding is too low. Some fiscal conservatives object to adding $95 billion without direct offsets. Others may worry that the election provisions won’t survive Senate rules.

If the House approves it, the most important details will come later, when the committees write the actual bill.

That’s when citizens should look for:

Exactly what the Iran-related money would fund;
Whether the spending has an expiration date;
What conditions would be attached to farm aid;
What voter information states would have to share;
Whether states could refuse the election grants; and
Whether Congress includes real spending cuts to pay for any of it.

Subscribe now

2. Quietly Moving Bills: Another Ukraine-Aid Bill Reaches the Senate Calendar

What Happened

On Thursday, Senate leaders began the process of placing H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act, directly on the Senate’s legislative calendar.

They used a fast-track rule (Rule XIV) that lets Senate leaders skip the slow committee process entirely, pulling a bill passed by the House straight to the front of the line for a potential vote.

The procedural move doesn’t guarantee a vote. But it puts the bill in position for Senate leaders to bring it up quickly if they choose.

The House passed the bill in June by a vote of 226–195 after supporters used a discharge petition to force it onto the floor over the objections of House Republican leadership. A discharge petition is simply a way for House members to force a bill to a vote even when committee leaders are trying to keep it buried.

What Changed

The bill would provide Ukraine with more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction assistance. It would also make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans and impose sanctions on key parts of the Russian economy.

Calling the larger portion a loan makes it different from a direct grant, but taxpayers still carry the risk if the money is never repaid. The Senate’s action means the Ukraine bill is no longer sitting only in the House. It’s now in position to become part of a larger Senate fight over Ukraine assistance, sanctions on Russia, the defense bill, or another must-pass package.

Why It Matters

Congress has already approved roughly $195 billion for the broader American response to the war in Ukraine, although not all of that money went directly to the Ukrainian government. Some was used to replace American weapons, support U.S. military operations in Europe, and fund other related programs.

This bill would create another American commitment while the war remains unresolved and Europe continues to depend heavily on Washington.

It also combines several different policies:

Military assistance;
Reconstruction aid;
Defense loans; and
Economic sanctions.

A lawmaker might support sanctions on Russia while opposing reconstruction funding. Another might support a repayable defense loan but oppose another direct grant.

Once again, Congress is tying those decisions together.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: The Ukrainian government, American defense contractors, companies helping rebuild damaged infrastructure, and lawmakers seeking tougher economic sanctions against Russia would benefit if the bill becomes law.
Likely Losers: American taxpayers would carry the risk of any unpaid loans or poorly monitored aid. Businesses and consumers could also face higher costs if new sanctions disrupt trade, energy markets, or international supply chains. Diplomats trying to negotiate an end to the war could lose flexibility if Congress locks additional sanctions and aid commitments into law.

Publius Project Take

Two things can be true at the same time: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong and the American people have nothing to do with it. American’s shouldn’t continue to accept an open-ended financial responsibility for the war.

We’re four years into the conflict and not only should we no longer be providing funding of any kind, we should be demanding answers:

How much more will America be expected to provide?
How much is Europe contributing?
Who is auditing the money?
What are the loan terms?
What happens if Ukraine cannot repay?
What is the realistic end goal?

Calling billions of dollars a “loan” doesn’t protect taxpayers unless there’s a serious repayment plan, enforceable terms, and an honest assessment of whether repayment is likely.

Security aid, reconstruction money, and sanctions should also receive separate votes.

America can oppose Russian aggression without writing another blank check or making itself permanently responsible for Europe’s defense.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether Senate Majority Leader John Thune schedules an actual vote on the Ukraine Support Act.

Also watch whether the bill is considered on its own or attached to:

The National Defense Authorization Act;
A revised Russia-sanctions package;
A year-end spending bill; or
Another emergency-funding measure.

The White House’s position will matter. Some supporters have acknowledged that the measure may struggle to receive 60 Senate votes without presidential backing.

Subscribe now

3. Money and Spending: The House Passes $47.32 Billion for the State Department and Foreign Aid

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2027, by a vote of 217–209.

The bill would provide $47.32 billion for the State Department, embassy security, diplomacy, foreign assistance, international organizations, and overseas security programs.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which may rewrite large portions of it before any final agreement reaches the president.

What Changed

The House bill spends about $2.69 billion less than the amount enacted for the same programs in fiscal year 2026. That is a reduction of roughly 6%.

However, the bill increases State Department security-assistance funding to $9.64 billion.

That includes:

$3.3 billion for Israel;
$500 million for Taiwan;
$200 million for the Philippines;
$1.66 billion for international narcotics and law-enforcement programs; and
$870 million for nuclear nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and related programs.

It also provides $22.45 billion for global health, economic assistance, and humanitarian programs, along with $15.15 billion for State Department operations and related agencies.

Representative Thomas Massie offered an amendment that would’ve removed the bill’s military assistance for Israel. It failed 104–314, with 10 members voting present.

Why It Matters

A 6% cut sounds like a win for fiscal restraint until you look at where the remaining cash is going.

The bill still authorizes tens of billions of dollars for programs spread across the world. Some fund legitimate diplomatic operations. Others provide military or economic assistance to foreign governments.

Congress places nearly all of it into one bill.

That means lawmakers don’t receive a separate final vote on assistance for Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, international financial institutions, global health programs, or humanitarian aid.

They receive one vote on the entire $47.32 billion package.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: The State Department, foreign governments receiving American assistance, international aid organizations, defense companies supplying foreign militaries, and contractors supporting diplomatic and overseas programs would benefit. Embassy personnel and Americans needing passports or consular help may also benefit from funding directed toward security and basic diplomatic services.
Likely Losers: American taxpayers remain responsible for billions of dollars sent overseas. Programs facing reductions - including some international organizations, global-health efforts, peacekeeping missions, and humanitarian programs - would receive less than they did last year. Lawmakers who wanted to support diplomacy while opposing specific foreign-aid payments were forced to vote on the entire package.

Publius Project Take

The federal government has a legitimate role in diplomacy.

America needs embassies. We need secure facilities, passport services, treaty negotiations, intelligence cooperation, and open lines of communication with friends and enemies.

That doesn’t mean every foreign-aid program is justified.

Sending $3.3 billion to Israel, $500 million to Taiwan, or any other large payment overseas should never be treated as routine paperwork.

Every payment should have to answer four basic questions:

What direct American interest does it serve?
What measurable result are taxpayers buying?
How will Congress know whether it worked?
When does the funding end?

“Less than last year” is better than another increase, but it’s not a constitutional argument.

And no foreign government should receive an automatic yearly check simply because that’s what Washington has always done.

What to Watch for Next

Watch what the Senate does with the House bill.

The Senate may restore programs the House cut, increase the overall spending level, or change the foreign-aid amounts.

Also watch whether this bill ever receives a clean final vote.

If the House and Senate can’t agree before September 30, the State Department funding could be folded into another continuing resolution or year-end spending package.

That would allow the biggest disagreements to be settled privately by congressional leaders instead of through open debate.

Subscribe now

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

The House returns Monday and is scheduled to consider several major bills.

Three deserve especially close attention.

Bill No. 1: H.R. 8800

The $1.14 Trillion National Defense Authorization Act

The House is scheduled to consider its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. The bill would authorize approximately $1.14 trillion for national defense - about $250 billion, or 28%, more than the amount authorized for fiscal year 2026.

The NDAA doesn’t hand over all that money by itself. Separate appropriations bills are still needed. But it establishes the policies, programs, troop levels, weapons purchases, and funding limits Congress wants the Pentagon to follow.

The Senate tried to begin debating its own version last week, but the motion received only 50 of the 60 votes needed to move forward.

Publius Project Take

Providing for the common defense is one of the clearest responsibilities given to the federal government. But that doesn’t make every defense dollar necessary.

Increasing the authorization by 28% in one year should require a detailed, public explanation. Congress should show where the money is going, why each major increase is needed, and what result taxpayers should expect.

The bill should also receive separate votes on major foreign-policy provisions.

Military pay, weapons purchases, Ukraine assistance, cooperation with Israel, overseas troop levels, and restrictions on bringing forces home shouldn’t all be hidden inside one “must-pass” package.

Supporting the troops doesn’t require giving the Pentagon a blank check.

Bill No. 2: H.R. 7008

The Stop Insider Trading Act

This bill would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks, options, and similar investments in publicly traded companies.

Members and their immediate families could still own diversified funds, qualifying trusts, and certain small-business interests.

They could also keep individual stocks they already own. However, before selling those investments, they would have to publicly announce the planned sale at least seven days - but no more than 14 days - in advance.

Violations could trigger a penalty of at least $2,000 or 10% of the transaction’s value, whichever is greater, along with the surrender of any profit made from the prohibited investment.

Publius Project Take

Members of Congress shouldn’t be buying and selling individual stocks while receiving private briefings and writing laws that can move entire industries.

And that shouldn’t be controversial. The bill is an improvement, but it doesn’t complete fix the conflict.

Members could continue holding individual stocks they already own. They would also be allowed to sell them after giving advance notice.

A stronger rule would require members to place individual investments into a genuine blind trust or sell them within a reasonable period after taking office.

Public service shouldn’t be a path to private financial advantage. Members who want to trade individual stocks are free to leave Congress and do it on their own time.

Bill No. 3: The Continuing Appropriations Act for 2027

Another Temporary Budget Patch

House leaders have scheduled a continuing resolution that would keep the government operating at roughly fiscal year 2026 funding levels through December 4, 2026.

In plain English, Congress is already admitting they won’t finish their main job before the midnight deadline on September 30. Instead, they want to put the government’s checkbook on autopilot for another two months.

The bill would generally prevent agencies from starting new programs that weren’t funded last year. It would also limit the Pentagon’s ability to begin new weapons-production projects or increase production rates under the temporary funding measure.

December 4 falls after the midterm election.

That means lawmakers could postpone many of the hardest spending decisions until after voters have already gone to the polls.

Publius Project Take

Congress is preparing to admit failure more than two months before the funding deadline.

Lawmakers know the fiscal year ends every September 30th. They know they’re supposed to pass 12 separate appropriations bills. They have known that since the day this Congress began.

A continuing resolution may prevent a shutdown, but it also rewards Congress for failing to do its job. It keeps outdated spending on autopilot, delays oversight, and allows lawmakers to avoid difficult votes before an election.

Congress should remain in session until the regular spending bills are finished. No extended recess. No taxpayer-funded campaign travel disguised as official business. And no blaming federal workers or the public for a deadline Congress knowingly missed.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether House leadership allows meaningful amendments to the defense bill, the insider-trading bill, and the continuing resolution.

Also watch the voting coalitions.

The defense bill may lose votes from both antiwar members and lawmakers who believe $1.14 trillion still isn’t enough.

The insider-trading bill may draw broad support, but disagreements remain over whether it goes far enough.

The temporary spending bill may produce the clearest political split. Some members will argue that it prevents a shutdown. Others will argue that extending funding through December simply protects Congress from having to make unpopular decisions before the election.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties and Constitutional Power: Financial Privacy, Gun Stores, and Federal Power

What Happened

The House passed H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, by a vote of 221–201.

The bill received support from 215 Republicans, five Democrats, and one independent. It was sent to the Senate on July 15 and referred to the Senate Banking Committee.

What Changed

Credit-card networks use merchant category codes to identify the general type of business where a transaction took place.

H.R. 1181 would prohibit payment networks, banks, and other covered companies from requiring or assigning a special code that identifies a business specifically as a firearms retailer.

The code itself would identify the type of store, not the specific item purchased.

In other words, it could show that someone used a card at a gun store. It wouldn’t show whether the person bought a firearm, ammunition, a cleaning kit, clothing, a gun safe, or something else.

The bill would give the attorney general authority to investigate complaints and seek a federal court order against companies that refuse to comply.

It would also override any state or local law requiring or regulating special merchant codes for firearms retailers.

Why It Matters

Lawful purchases can reveal a great deal about a person’s life.

Financial records can show where someone worships, which political groups they support, what medical services they use, where they travel, and which legal products they buy.

Creating a special code for firearms stores would make it easier for financial companies or government agencies to identify people who shop at those businesses - even when there is no evidence of a crime.

At the same time, Congress is using federal power to settle a policy fight that several states have already addressed for themselves.

That raises two separate questions:

Should private financial companies create a special tracking category for lawful gun-store purchases?

And should Washington have the power to override every state’s answer?

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Firearms retailers, lawful gun owners, financial-privacy advocates, and customers who don’t want their legal purchases placed into a special category would benefit. Payment companies would also have one national rule instead of dealing with different state requirements.
Likely Losers: States that adopted their own merchant-code laws would lose the ability to enforce them. Gun-control organizations seeking greater financial tracking of firearms retailers would lose one possible tool. Payment networks would face new federal restrictions and oversight from the attorney general.

Publius Project Take

Banks and credit-card companies shouldn’t be quietly building surveillance systems around legal purchases. Shopping at a gun store isn’t a crime or evidence of a crime.

A special merchant code might begin as a broad business category, but databases have a habit of being used for purposes far beyond the reason they were created.

The privacy protection makes sense. The federal override is harder to defend.

Conservatives can’t spend years arguing that Washington should respect state authority and then abandon federalism whenever Congress offers a national policy they happen to like.

A good result doesn’t automatically justify every means used to reach it.

The strongest version of this bill would protect customers from private financial surveillance while narrowing the federal government’s power to erase state law.

Civil liberties and federalism shouldn’t be treated as opposing principles.

Both exist to keep power from becoming too concentrated.

What to Watch for Next

Watch whether the Senate Banking Committee holds a hearing or changes the bill.

The biggest questions will be:

Whether the Senate keeps the nationwide ban;
Whether it narrows the state-law override;
Whether the attorney general retains enforcement power;
Whether banks receive exceptions for fraud investigations; and
Whether supporters can find the votes needed to move the bill through the Senate.

The measure is unlikely to move quickly unless Senate leadership makes it a priority or attaches it to a larger financial-services bill.

Subscribe now

6. What to Watch Next Week

1. The $95 Billion Package

Watch whether the House can pass the budget resolution authorizing the new reconciliation process.

The vote will show whether Republicans can hold together lawmakers who want more defense spending, members who want spending cuts, and representatives worried about using a budget bill to change election rules.

2. The House Defense Bill

The House will try to move its $1.14 trillion NDAA after the Senate failed to begin debating its own version.

Watch which amendments receive votes and which issues leadership keeps off the floor.

3. The December Spending Patch

Watch whether the House approves temporary government funding through December 4.

The length of the extension matters because it would move final budget decisions beyond the midterm election.

4. Ukraine Aid in the Senate

Watch whether Senate leaders bring the Ukraine Support Act to the floor or use it as leverage in negotiations over sanctions, defense spending, or another larger package.

5. The Congressional Stock-Trading Vote

Watch whether the House passes the Stop Insider Trading Act and whether members try to strengthen it by requiring divestment or blind trusts.

The final vote will show how serious Congress is about policing its own conflicts of interest.

7. The Ledger’s Bottom Line

Congress came back to Washington and immediately began combining issues that should be debated separately.

War funding was tied to farm aid and election rules.
Ukraine security assistance was tied to reconstruction money and economic sanctions.
Foreign aid for dozens of countries was rolled into one $47.32 billion vote.
And congressional leaders prepared another temporary spending bill so lawmakers could avoid finishing the budget before the election.

That’s not an accident. Large packages make it easier for lawmakers to hide unpopular decisions, trade votes, and avoid being held responsible for any one policy. A member can always point to the part he supported and claim the rest was the price of getting it passed.

That may be how Washington operates, but it doesn’t have to be how a republic governs.

For every bill, every dollar, and every new claim of government power, citizens should keep asking:

How much will it cost?
Where does the Constitution grant the authority?
Why is this issue tied to everything else?
Who will be held responsible if it fails?

Those are not Republican questions or Democratic questions.

They are the questions free citizens should ask anyone exercising power in their name.

Salus Populi Suprema Lex.

The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law

8. Sources and Further Reading

The $95 Billion Reconciliation Framework

House Budget Committee, “House Budget Committee Advances Reconciliation 3.0 to Support Our Troops and Secure Our Elections.”
Reuters, “House Republicans Push Forward on Funding Plan for Iran War and Election Overhaul.”

Ukraine and Russia

U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Rule XIV Proceedings for H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act.”
Associated Press, “House Passes Bill to Aid Ukraine and Impose New Sanctions on Russia.”

State Department and Foreign-Aid Spending

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House, “Roll Call 247: Passage of H.R. 8595.”
House Appropriations Committee, “Fiscal Year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Bill Summary.”
Reuters, “House Rejects Amendment to Remove Israel Military Assistance.”

Coming to the House Floor

Office of the House Majority Leader, “Weekly Schedule for the Week of July 20, 2026.”
Congressional Research Service, “FY2027 NDAA: Summary of Funding Authorizations.”
U.S. Senate, “Roll Call Vote 195: Motion to Proceed to S. 4784.”
House Committee Report 119-479, Stop Insider Trading Act.
H.R. 9770, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027, proposed bill text.

Civil Liberties and Constitutional Power

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House, “Roll Call 240: Passage of H.R. 1181.”
H.R. 1181, Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, Senate-referred bill text.

Episode 14: Get the Hell Out of Washington

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 17:00:41 GMT

The Defiant Citizen — A Publius Project Podcast: A return to first principles, where self-governance, responsibility, and the role of the citizen take center stage.

Subscribe now

Congress was never supposed to become a lifetime career.

The basic idea was pretty simple: citizens would leave their homes, businesses, farms, classrooms, and communities for a time, serve the public, and then return home to live under the same laws they helped pass.

That’s not what we have anymore.

Today, too many members of Congress spend decades in Washington. They build donor networks, climb the party ladder, learn how to work the system, and become better at staying in office than representing the people who sent them there.

The problem isn’t just age. It isn’t even just term limits.

The real problem is permanent power.

When public service becomes a career, reelection starts shaping every decision. Fundraising replaces governing. Party leadership becomes more important than the people back home. Lobbyists build relationships that last for decades. And Washington slowly becomes its own separate world.

Meanwhile, everyday America keeps paying the bills.

We go to work. We raise families. We run businesses. We deal with rising prices, insurance companies, taxes, regulations, and the consequences of laws written by people who may not have lived a normal life in forty years.

A citizen legislature would look different.

It would include mechanics, nurses, teachers, veterans, farmers, tradesmen, and small-business owners. People who know Washington is a temporary assignment, not a permanent home.

They would serve.

They would represent.

And then they would go home.

That is the subject of the latest episode of The Defiant Citizen:

Get the Hell Out of Washington

How Temporary Service Became Permanent Power

This episode looks at how Congress became a professional political class, why incumbents are so hard to remove, how the endless campaign changed representation, and what it would take to restore the citizen legislature.

Because Congress does not belong to Congress.

It belongs to us.

Listen Here

The FairTax - Part IV

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:01:05 GMT

If you’re anything like me, you’re tired of watching your hard-earned money vanish into a 70k page black hole called the federal tax code before you even have a chance to buy groceries. We’ve all been told the current system is simply just “the way it is,” but what if we could completely flip the script? What if we could keep 100% of our paychecks and the IRS all but completely disappeared?

In this special four-part series for the Publius Project, I’m breaking down the FairTax Act - not like an academic essay or a dry political debate, but like two neighbors talking around a fire pit while having a cold one and listening to some good music. Whether you’re skeptical about the math or ready for a radical change, this series is about exploring what happens when we stop letting the government monitor everything we earn and start focusing on a system that respects our privacy, our hard work, and our freedom.

Freedom still has to pass the math test. Part IV asks whether the FairTax can fund the government, protect taxpayers, and make the true cost of D.C. visible. The Math of Liberty.

Subscribe now

The most persistent debate around the FairTax isn’t about philosophy; it’s about basic arithmetic. For a reform this massive to work, it has to achieve “revenue neutrality,” meaning it must fund the essential functions of the federal government without driving us deeper into the national deficit.

Let’s look closely at the math and the conflicting arguments surrounding it.

“Why do some people say 23% and others say 30%?”

The first point of confusion for most folks is the rate itself. Proponents usually quote 23%, while critics cite 30%. Both are technically correct, they’re just looking at it from different angles:

The Tax-Inclusive Rate (23%): This is meant to match how we view current income tax brackets. If someone earn $100 today, the government takes roughly $23 off the top, leaving them with $77. In this view, the tax is 23% of the total chunk.
The Tax-Exclusive Rate (30%): This is what we actually see printed on a sales receipt. If an item costs $77, a 30% sales tax adds $23, bringing our total out-of-pocket to $100.

Now, critics from groups like the Tax Policy Center argue a 30% markup might not be enough. They suggest that once you account for potential tax evasion and the massive cost of sending out the monthly prebate, the rate might need to lean closer to a 46% tax-inclusive rate, which would look like an 85% markup at the cash register.

FairTax supporters dispute these higher-rate estimates. They argue that some analyses rely on assumptions about future exemptions, carve-outs, or political compromises that are not contained in the legislation itself. Supporters contend that the proper comparison is between the current tax code as written and the FairTax proposal as written, rather than between current law and a hypothetical modified version of the FairTax. Critics respond that political realities often force major tax legislation to evolve after enactment, making such assumptions reasonable when projecting long-term outcomes.

Subscribe now

The Rate vs. The Spending

FairTax supporters argue that debates over the tax rate can sometimes obscure a more fundamental issue: federal spending. The FairTax does not determine how much money Washington spends; it determines how that money is collected. Under this view, a high FairTax rate is not evidence of a flawed tax mechanism so much as a reflection of the amount of revenue required to fund the existing federal government. One advantage of a visible consumption tax, supporters argue, is that it makes the true cost of government easier for citizens to see and evaluate.

“The ‘Boomtown’ Effect: Growth as a revenue source.”

FairTax supporters argue that tax policy does more than raise revenue, it influences how people work, save, invest, and spend. As a result, many FairTax projections incorporate “dynamic scoring,” which attempts to account for changes in economic behavior rather than assuming the economy remains unchanged after major tax reform.

Increased savings: By removing the tax penalty on savings and investments, capital stock can grow significantly, driving up productivity and overall economic consumption.
The efficiency dividend: Eliminating that $300 billion annual compliance drain (what we spend just to file taxes) injects that massive capital directly back into the productive economy.
A broader base: By capturing the underground cash economy and foreign tourists, the tax net expands, allowing a lower overall rate to generate the same total revenue.

“What happens to Social Security and Medicare?”

A major hurdle is making sure our critical safety nets stay solvent. Under the FairTax, traditional payroll taxes are completely abolished.

To fix this, the Act explicitly carves out a specific percentage of the total sales tax revenue to be automatically deposited right into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And because a national sales tax would initially raise the visible price of goods, the Act requires Social Security benefits to be indexed for inflation, making sure seniors’ purchasing power is fully protected during the transition.

Is the FairTax Regressive?

Critics often argue that consumption taxes are regressive because wealthier households typically spend a smaller percentage of their income than lower-income households. By measuring taxes as a percentage of income, the tax burden appears to fall more heavily on those who spend most of what they earn.

FairTax supporters challenge the premise itself. They argue that fairness should be measured against consumption rather than income. Under this view, income that is saved, invested, or donated is fundamentally different from income used for personal consumption. A consumption-based tax system taxes what individuals take out of the economy rather than what they contribute to it. Supporters contend that this approach rewards saving, investment, and charitable giving while imposing higher taxes on luxury consumption.

Whether fairness should be measured against income or consumption ultimately depends on one’s philosophy of taxation, making this one of the central debates surrounding the FairTax proposal.

Subscribe now

“Let’s look at the counter-arguments honestly.”

While the vision is bold, the math faces plenty of skepticism from mainstream economists:

The revenue gap: The Brookings Institution warns that a 23% inclusive rate could add trillions to the national deficit over ten years if those economic growth projections turn out to be overly optimistic.
Evasion risks: High sales taxes in other countries have historically driven people toward under-the-table cash transactions. Critics argue a 30% markup creates a massive incentive for a retail black market.
The ‘stacked’ tax problem: There’s a major question regarding state and local sales taxes. In a state like California or New York, adding a 30% federal tax on top of a 10% local sales tax means a 40% total markup at the register, a number that might be politically and economically unsustainable for retail stores.

“Is it actually feasible?”

Whether the FairTax is feasible ultimately depends on how one evaluates the trade-offs, assumptions, and economic projections surrounding the proposal. Supporters see it as a simpler, more transparent system that rewards work, saving, and investment while broadening the tax base. Critics worry about transition costs, compliance challenges, and the uncertainty of large-scale economic forecasts.

Supporters have also begun making a newer argument tied to artificial intelligence and automation. If future technologies significantly reduce the amount of income earned through traditional labor, governments that rely heavily on taxing wages and earnings could face growing revenue challenges. Because the FairTax is tied to consumption rather than income, supporters argue it may prove more resilient in an economy where value creation increasingly comes from automation, AI systems, and capital-intensive production rather than human labor. Critics counter that the scale and timing of such changes remain highly uncertain.

The FairTax isn’t a magic wand; it’s a fundamental trade-off. It trades the privacy-evaporating income tax for the absolute visibility of a sales tax. It trades the complex mess of the IRS for the simplicity of the retail counter.

Ultimately, it asks us to make a choice: Which is more dangerous to a free people, a government that knows everything you earn, or a government that knows everything you spend?

In Liberty,
Gary Mullins (Libertas)

The People's Ledger

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:53:34 GMT

Week Ending July 11, 2026

Subscribe now

Congress spent most of this week away from Washington for the holiday break. The House cast zero votes, and the Senate only held brief “pro forma” sessions – which is Washington’s way of opening the chamber doors for five minutes to satisfy a legal requirement, banging a gavel, and walking right back out.

But an empty Capitol building doesn’t mean the government stopped moving.

While lawmakers were back in their home districts, a major housing bill quietly became law without the president’s signature, the Senate prepared to advance a staggering $1.15 trillion defense package, the Justice Department locked horns with state election officials, and leadership began openly planning yet another temporary spending bill to keep the government open.

Washington may have been physically quiet, but the fight over who controls what, how much they spend, and how far federal power can reach continued without missing a beat.

Here’s what happened in our name last week.

1. The Biggest Story: The Housing Bill Becomes Law Without a Signature

What Happened

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) officially became law without the signature of President Trump. The bill passed the Senate 85–5 and the House 358–32. It then sat on the president’s desk for ten days (excluding Sundays).

Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, the president normally has three choices: sign it into law, veto it, or do nothing. When Congress is still available to receive a veto and the president takes no action within those 10 days, the bill automatically becomes law.

That’s what happened here.

What Changed

The law attempts to make housing more affordable by making it easier to build and finance more homes.

That matters because Washington has often tried to solve high housing prices by giving buyers more money. But giving people more money to compete for the same limited number of homes can push prices even higher.

This law takes a different approach. It speeds up some federal permits and environmental reviews, expands financing for modular and manufactured homes, and creates programs aimed at smaller mortgages that many banks currently avoid.

It also stops the largest institutional investors from buying more single-family homes after they reach a certain ownership limit.

Local communities will still control their own zoning rules.

The Congressional Budget Office says the law should not add to the federal deficit as written. However, some of the new programs won’t begin unless Congress provides money for them in future spending bills.

Why It Matters

This was one of the most widely supported domestic bills passed by this Congress.

At a time when Republicans and Democrats struggle to agree on almost anything, the bill passed both chambers by overwhelming margins.

It also shows how a bill can become law even when the president refuses to sign it. By allowing the ten-day deadline to pass, President Trump let the bill take effect without officially putting his name on it.

In practical terms, the law is now in place. But the president can still say he never endorsed it.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Modular and manufactured home builders, people looking for smaller mortgages, and communities that want more housing without giving up local zoning control.
Likely Losers: Very large investment companies that have been buying up single-family homes. Once they reach the new ownership limit, they could face penalties of up to $1 million if they continue purchasing them.

Publius Project Take

There’s a lot to like here, but there’s also reason to be cautious.

The best part of this law is that it acknowledges a basic economic truth: the answer to a housing shortage is more housing, not subsidies, tax credits, and cheap loans sponsored by Washington. That only makes homes harder and more expensive to build.

Cutting unnecessary federal permits and making modular homes and manufactured homes easier to finance moves in the right direction.

This law also leaves zoning decisions with local communities, where they belong. People in Virginia, for example, shouldn’t have their neighborhoods planned by federal bureaucrats in D.C. who will never see or live with the results.

My concern is that this law opens the door for future new programs that will most likely require more taxpayer funding. Pilot programs have a funny way of becoming permanent government programs once an agency, staff and budget are built around it.

I’m also leery about Congress limiting how many homes a private company can own. I understand the concern of large investment firms buying up entire neighborhoods, which can hurt families trying to purchase a home, but government interference in the market is still a problem. Congress should be more concerned about federal tax rules, monetary policy, housing subsidies, or regulations creating the problems in the first place.

What to Watch For Next

Watch the fiscal year 2027 spending bills.

Congress created several new housing programs, but it didn’t provide all the money needed to get them running.

That means lawmakers will have to decide later whether these programs actually receive funding. A program can exist on paper for years without doing much if Congress never pays for it.

Subscribe now

2. Quietly Moving Bills: The $1.15 Trillion Defense Vehicle

What Happened

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has started the process of bringing S. 4784, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, to the Senate floor.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill by an 18–9 vote. Thune then filed what is known as a cloture motion on the motion to proceed.

In plain English, Senate leaders are trying to gather the 60 votes needed to end procedural delays and begin formally debating the bill.

That wouldn’t pass the NDAA. It would simply allow the Senate to start considering it.

What Changed

The NDAA is Congress’s yearly defense-policy bill.

It tells the Pentagon what programs it may operate, what weapons it may purchase, how many people may serve, and how much money Congress is willing to authorize.

One important distinction: the NDAA authorizes spending, but it doesn’t provide all the money by itself. Congress must still pass separate appropriations bills before the money can actually be spent.

Even so, the NDAA creates the blueprint.

This version authorizes approximately $1.15 trillion for national defense – roughly $249 billion more than the enacted FY2026 level.

Among its many provisions, the bill would:

Give military personnel a 3.6% pay raise.
Extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2029 and authorize another $750 million.
Make it harder for a president to reduce U.S. troop levels in Europe or South Korea without first submitting reports and certifications to Congress.
Create a new U.S.–Israel program for joint defense research, weapons testing, technology development and industrial cooperation.
Increase cooperation with Israel on drones and underground warfare.
Require new assessments and reporting on drone threats near the American border.

Why It Matters

The NDAA is considered one of Washington’s “must-pass” bills.

Few lawmakers want to be accused of voting against military pay, troop readiness or national defense. That makes the NDAA a convenient place to attach policies that might struggle to pass on their own.

A senator may support a pay raise for servicemembers but oppose extending aid to Ukraine. Another may support rebuilding America’s weapons stockpiles but oppose deeper military cooperation with Israel.

Yet Congress rolls all of it into one enormous package and eventually demands a single yes-or-no vote.

That makes it much harder for citizens to know what their senators actually supported.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Military personnel receiving the proposed pay raise, defense contractors, weapons manufacturers, military research institutions and foreign governments receiving additional American assistance or cooperation.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers, lawmakers seeking serious spending restraint and future presidents who may want to reduce America’s permanent military presence overseas.

Publius Project Take

Providing for the national defense is one of the federal government’s clearest constitutional responsibilities. America needs a capable military. Our service members deserve proper pay, working equipment and leaders who take readiness seriously.

But “national defense” can’t become a magic phrase that ends every argument about spending.

A ~28% jump from roughly $901 billion to $1.15 trillion in a single year should require a detailed public explanation. Congress should be able to show where every major increase is going, why it’s necessary and what result taxpayers should expect.

My larger concern is how much foreign policy is being buried inside this defense bill.

The provisions involving Ukraine, Israel, Europe and South Korea are not minor housekeeping matters. They could shape American military commitments for years and make it harder for future presidents to bring troops home or change course.

Those decisions deserve separate debates and separate recorded votes.

A senator shouldn’t be able to vote for deeper foreign entanglements and then hide behind the excuse that he was simply “supporting the troops.”

We can support our military without writing a blank check. We can defend America without making every overseas deployment untouchable. And we can work with allies without tying America’s military policy permanently to another country’s priorities.

A strong national defense should protect the United States – not turn every alliance, deployment and foreign conflict into an endless American obligation.

What to Watch for Next

First, watch whether Senate leaders can get the 60 votes needed to begin debating the bill. Then watch the amendment process.

Will senators receive separate recorded votes on the overall spending level, Ukraine assistance, the U.S.–Israel technology program and restrictions on bringing American troops home?

Or will leadership protect those provisions by keeping them buried inside a bill few senators are willing to oppose?

Finally, remember that authorization isn’t the same as funding. The NDAA may approve $1.15 trillion, but the appropriations bills will determine how much money Congress actually hands over.

Subscribe now

3. Money & Spending: Governing by Shutdown Threat

What Happened

The federal government’s current funding runs out on September 30.

Congress still has a couple of months to finish its work, but Senate leaders are already discussing another continuing resolution, usually called a CR.

A continuing resolution is a temporary spending bill that keeps the government open when Congress fails to pass a full budget on time.

In other words, lawmakers are already preparing a backup plan in case they don’t complete their main job.

What Changed

Congress is supposed to pass twelve separate spending bills each year.

Each bill covers a different part of the federal government, such as defense, transportation, agriculture, veterans’ programs, and the State Department.

That process is supposed to let lawmakers debate each department separately, cut waste, offer amendments, and vote on individual priorities.

Instead, the process has stalled over disagreements about domestic spending, the proposed $1.15 trillion defense budget, and a separate $87.6 billion emergency request tied largely to military operations involving Iran.

Rather than settling those arguments through twelve separate bills, congressional leaders will, once again, push everything into a temporary funding patch or one enormous year-end omnibus package.

Why It Matters

This is how Congress turns its own failure into an emergency.

Lawmakers miss the deadline. The government moves closer to a shutdown. Leadership then produces a massive spending bill and tells members they must vote for it immediately or be blamed for closing the government.

Members may receive hundreds or thousands of pages with little time to read them. They’re then given one choice: accept the entire package or vote against funding the government.

That isn’t careful budgeting. It’s government by manufactured crisis.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Congressional leaders and a small group of negotiators who gain enormous control over the final spending deal.
Likely Losers: Rank-and-file lawmakers, taxpayers, and the public, who lose the ability to examine and challenge each part of the federal budget separately.

Federal agencies also benefit because temporary spending bills often continue last year’s funding without forcing Congress to decide whether every program still deserves the money.

Publius Project Take

Congress has one of the clearest jobs in the Constitution: decide how public money is spent. Yet year after year, lawmakers fail to pass the regular spending bills on time and then act as though the deadline appeared out of nowhere.

It didn’t.

They know the fiscal year ends on September 30. They know how many bills have to be passed. And they know the disagreements months in advance.

The shutdown threat is no longer an unexpected emergency. It’s become a negotiating tool.

That benefits congressional leaders because it allows a handful of people to write the final deal behind closed doors. Rank-and-file members are pressured to fall in line, and the public gets almost no meaningful chance to examine what’s being funded.

A conservative approach should demand real spending restraint.

A libertarian approach should demand transparency, limited government, and accountability.

The current process delivers none of those things.

Congress should pass each spending bill separately, put members on the record, and give the public enough time to read the legislation before a vote.

And when Congress fails to do its job, members should feel the consequences – not federal workers, military families, or ordinary citizens who depend on government services.

No budget should mean no congressional pay increase, no taxpayer-funded travel, and no early recess until the work is finished.

What to Watch For Next

Listen closely to the language coming from congressional leaders.

The warning sign will be some version of:

“There simply isn’t enough time to finish all twelve spending bills.”

When that excuse starts getting used in July or August, it means lawmakers are already preparing another temporary patch or giant year-end package.

Also watch how long the proposed continuing resolution would last.

A brief extension might give Congress time to finish its work. A measure lasting until after the election would allow lawmakers to avoid difficult spending votes until voters have already cast their ballots in this year’s mid-term elections.

That’s not a scheduling decision. It’s political protection.

Subscribe now

4. Coming to the House Floor This Week

The House returns Monday with a long list of bills on its schedule.

Most will receive little attention outside Washington. Here are four that deserve a closer look because they involve foreign aid, election money, financial privacy, and the balance of power between Washington and the states.

H.R. 8595 (Foreign Operations Spending): H.R. 8595 would provide $47.32 billion for the State Department, foreign aid, diplomatic operations, and other international programs during fiscal year 2027.

That is about $2.69 billion less than last year, a cut of roughly 6%.

Even with the overall reduction, the bill would provide:

$3.3 billion in military assistance for Israel.
$1.8 billion for countries and programs in the Indo-Pacific.
At least $500 million in military assistance for Taiwan.

It would also continue funding for other American allies, international health programs, counternarcotics efforts, and diplomatic operations around the world.

Publius Project Take

Cutting the bill by $2.69 billion is better than increasing it. But “less than last year” doesn’t automatically make a spending bill responsible.

The federal government has a legitimate role in diplomacy. We need embassies, consular services, treaty negotiations, intelligence cooperation, and ways to communicate with both friends and enemies.

Foreign aid is a different question. Every dollar sent overseas should have to pass a simple test:

What direct American interest does it serve?
What result are we buying?
How will we know whether it worked?
When does the funding end?

Writing a $3.3 billion check to Israel or a $500 million check to Taiwan shouldn’t be treated as routine housekeeping. Each commitment should be openly debated, clearly justified, and voted on separately.

Bundling dozens of countries and programs into one massive bill allows lawmakers to support foreign aid they might otherwise oppose and then claim they were merely funding the State Department.

A smaller blank check is still a blank check.

H.R. 8720 (Campaign Finance Transparency Act): This bill would tighten the rules for online political donations made with credit and debit cards.

Political committees would have to collect the card’s security code and billing ZIP code. The name on the card would also have to match the name of the donor.

The bill would prohibit campaigns from knowingly accepting donations made with store gift cards. It would also require committees to report suspected donations made in someone else’s name.

Another major change has received less attention: the bill would remove the current $200 reporting threshold. That means political committees would have to collect and report identifying information for donors giving even very small amounts.

Publius Project Take

The basic fraud protections make sense. Political campaigns shouldn’t be accepting anonymous gift cards, cards belonging to someone else, or online donations that can’t be connected to a real donor.

If campaigns demand election integrity from voters, they should practice financial integrity themselves. But removing the $200 reporting threshold raises a legitimate privacy concern.

Someone who gives $10 or $20 to a candidate shouldn’t necessarily have his name and address placed into a searchable government database.

There’s a difference between verifying that a donation is lawful and publicly exposing every small donor.

Congress could require campaigns to verify the donor privately while keeping small contributions out of public disclosure reports.

Stop illegal money, but don’t build another government database containing the names of ordinary Americans who made small political donations.

H.R. 3535 (Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act): Federal law already prohibits foreign nationals from donating to American political candidates and campaigns.

H.R. 3535 would expand that ban to include money spent on state and local ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections.

That means foreign nationals couldn’t legally donate money to influence questions such as abortion laws, marijuana legalization, tax limits, election rules, or efforts to remove an elected official from office.

Publius Project Take

This is pretty straightforward.

Foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreign nationals have no business financing American elections.

That principle should apply whether voters are choosing a president, electing a town council member, changing a state constitution, or deciding a local referendum.

The people who live under the law should be the people who decide the law.

The bill should be enforced evenly, however. The standard cannot depend on whether the foreign money helps Republicans, Democrats, environmental groups, gun-rights organizations, unions, or corporations.

No foreign money means no foreign money.

H.R. 1181 (Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act): Credit-card networks use what are called merchant category codes to identify the general type of business where a purchase was made.

H.R. 1181 would prohibit card networks and financial companies from requiring a special code that identifies a business specifically as a firearms retailer. The code wouldn’t show whether someone purchased a gun, ammunition, a holster, clothing, or something else. It would only show that the card was used at a business classified as a firearms retailer.

The bill would give the attorney general the power to investigate violations and seek a court order against companies that refuse to comply. It would also override state and local laws dealing with firearms merchant codes.

Publius Project Take

Banks and credit-card companies shouldn’t quietly become a private surveillance system for lawful purchases. Buying something at a gun store isn’t evidence of a crime. Financial companies shouldn’t be creating special lists that could later be used to track, investigate, or discriminate against customers who have broken no law.

On that point, the bill protects both the Second Amendment and basic financial privacy. But the federalism problem can’t be ignored.

The same bill that limits private financial surveillance also gives the federal government the power to override every state law on the subject and places enforcement in the hands of the attorney general. That may produce the policy some would prefer, but constitutional principles matter most when they become inconvenient.

If conservatives argue that Washington shouldn’t override state law whenever Democrats control Congress, they shouldn’t demand federal preemption simply because Republicans currently support the result.

The privacy protection is worth supporting.

The nationwide override deserves a separate debate.

What to Watch

Watch whether lawmakers receive real opportunities to amend these bills or whether leadership controls which changes may reach the floor.

Also watch the final vote totals.

The two election bills are scheduled under a procedure normally used for measures expected to receive broad support and requiring a two-thirds vote. The State Department spending bill and the firearms merchant-code bill will be considered under rules established by House leadership.

That procedural difference matters.

It tells us which bills leadership expects to pass quickly, and which ones may produce a larger political fight.

Subscribe now

5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power: The Federalism Line

What Happened

The Justice Department sent warning letters to election officials in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The letters said state and local officials could face federal criminal charges if they knowingly allow people who aren’t eligible to vote to remain on voter rolls or cast ballots.

The Justice Department also gave states five days to explain how they planned to follow federal election law.

What Changed

The federal government is increasing pressure on states over how they maintain their voter-registration lists.

That pressure comes after the Justice Department sued Maryland and other states seeking access to their full voter databases. The Maryland records include sensitive personal information such as birth dates, home addresses, driver’s-license numbers, and portions of Social Security numbers.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. She ruled that federal law didn’t require Maryland to hand its complete, unredacted voter file to the Justice Department.

The ruling didn’t say Maryland could ignore federal election law. It said the Justice Department hadn’t shown that the law gave it the right to obtain all that private information.

That’s an important distinction.

Why It Matters

Only eligible American citizens should vote in federal elections.

States also have a legal duty to keep their voter rolls accurate and current. Federal law establishes rules for maintaining those lists and gives the Justice Department a role in enforcing them.

But elections are still largely administered by state and local governments.

That division of power acts as a safeguard. It prevents one national office from controlling every voter list, every eligibility decision, and every part of the election system.

The federal government may enforce federal law. It may investigate actual violations. It may take states to court when it believes they are failing to meet their legal duties.

What it may not do is simply claim whatever power or private information it wants without showing where the law gives it that authority.

Who Wins or Loses

Likely Winners: Citizens who want accurate voter rolls without surrendering their private information, and states defending their authority to administer elections within federal law.
Likely Losers: Federal agencies attempting to collect complete state voter databases without first proving that the law gives them that power.

There could also be a broader loser: public trust.

If states ignore real problems with voter eligibility, citizens will lose confidence in the election system. If Washington uses election integrity as an excuse to gather massive amounts of private data, citizens will distrust the federal government.

Neither outcome strengthens the republic.

Publius Project Take

There shouldn’t be anything controversial about saying that noncitizens can’t vote in American elections.

They can’t, and states should take reasonable steps to identify unlawful registrations, remove ineligible names, and prosecute anyone who knowingly casts an illegal ballot.

Election integrity isn’t voter suppression. Every illegal vote weakens the lawful vote of an American citizen.

But supporting election integrity doesn’t require giving the Justice Department unlimited access to the personal information of millions of lawful voters.

A database containing names, home addresses, birth dates, driver’s-license information, and partial Social Security numbers creates serious privacy and security risks. Once that information is gathered in one place, citizens have little control over how it is used, shared, or protected.

Conservatives should be especially careful here.

They can’t spend years warning about federal databases, government surveillance, and political abuse of law-enforcement agencies – and then abandon those concerns because an administration they support claims it needs the information.

The Constitution doesn’t change depending on which party controls the Justice Department.

Washington should enforce clear federal laws against illegal voting. States should prove that they’re properly maintaining their voter rolls. But federal officials should have to identify a lawful reason, follow due process, and obtain only the information genuinely needed for the investigation.

The goal should be secure elections without creating a national voter-surveillance system.

We can protect the ballot and protect the citizen at the same time.

What to Watch For Next

Watch how states respond to the Justice Department’s letters.

Some states will cooperate. Others may argue that the warnings are vague, politically motivated, or an attempt to intimidate state election officials.

Also watch for more lawsuits over voter data.

The central question will be whether the Justice Department can point to a specific federal law authorizing each demand or whether it’s simply trying to create new power through warning letters and lawsuits.

Finally, watch what happens to the data states have already provided.

Citizens deserve to know:

What information was turned over?
Which federal agencies can access it?
How will it be used?
How long will it be kept?
What happens when a lawful citizen is wrongly identified as ineligible?

Keeping voter rolls accurate is a legitimate government responsibility.

Building a national database of American voters without clear limits is something else entirely.

Subscribe now

6. What to Watch Next Week

The Trillion-Dollar Hurdle: The first question is whether Senate leaders can gather the 60 votes needed to begin debating the $1.15 trillion defense bill.

If they clear that hurdle, watch what happens next.

Will senators be allowed to vote separately on aid to Ukraine, military cooperation with Israel, overseas troop levels, and the overall price of the bill?

Or will all of those issues remain tied together in one enormous package?

Those votes will show whether senators are willing to defend each policy on its own—or whether they prefer to hide controversial decisions inside a bill labeled “national defense.”

The House Rules Mutiny: House leaders are preparing to bring several bills to the floor, including the State Department and foreign-aid spending bill.

But some Republican members have repeatedly joined Democrats in voting down the procedural rules needed to begin debate.

They are using those votes to pressure leadership into taking action on the SAVE America Act.

That means the House could once again become stuck before lawmakers even reach the bills themselves.

Watch whether leadership reaches a deal with the holdouts or whether the internal fight shuts down House business for another week.

The CR Foundation: Congress has until September 30 to fund the government.

That may sound like plenty of time, but leaders are already discussing another temporary spending bill.

Listen for phrases such as:

“There’s not enough time to finish all twelve spending bills.”
“A short-term extension is the only responsible option.”
“We must keep the government open.”

Those phrases usually mean Congress is preparing to delay the real decisions and carry last year’s spending forward.

Also watch how long any temporary bill would last.

A brief extension could give lawmakers more time to finish the regular budget.

An extension lasting until after the election would allow them to avoid difficult spending votes until voters have already gone to the polls.

The Questions to Keep Asking

As these fights develop, citizens should keep asking:

Will lawmakers receive separate votes on the biggest decisions?
Will the public have enough time to read the bills?
Will Congress finish its work before the deadline?
Or will leaders wait until the last moment and demand another take-it-or-leave-it vote?

Next week will tell us whether Congress plans to debate these issues openly - or once again govern by deadline and pressure.

The Ledger’s Bottom Line

Congress called this a quiet recess week.

It wasn’t.

A major housing bill became law. The Senate moved closer to debating a $1.15 trillion defense bill. The Justice Department increased pressure on state election officials. And congressional leaders began laying the groundwork for another temporary spending deal because they may once again fail to pass the budget on time.

All of this happened while most Americans were paying attention to something else.

That is how Washington often works. The loudest political fights grab the headlines while the decisions that actually change the law, spend our money, and expand government power move quietly in the background.

Citizenship can’t mean watching campaign commercials, picking a side, and voting every two years.

Self-government requires us to pay attention between elections - especially when Congress is out of town and the cameras are pointed somewhere else.

For every bill, every dollar, and every new claim of government power, we should keep asking:

How much will it cost?
Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to do it?
Who will be held responsible if it fails?

Those are not Republican questions or Democratic questions.

They are the questions free citizens should always ask of anyone exercising power in their name.

Salus Populi Suprema Lex.

The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.

Subscribe now

Sources and Further Reading

Congressional Schedule and Floor Activity

U.S. Senate Daily Press, “July 6, 2026 Pro Forma Session.”
U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Upcoming Senate Schedule and S. 4784 Cloture Notice.”
Office of the House Majority Leader, “Weekly Schedule for the Week of July 13, 2026.”
U.S. House of Representatives, “Bills Scheduled for the Week of July 13, 2026.”

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act

H.R. 6644, 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, enrolled bill text.
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, “The Facts: The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.”
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, “Section-by-Section Summary of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.”
Associated Press, “Trump Allows Housing Bill to Become Law Without His Signature.”

The Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Bill

S. 4784, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027.
Senate Armed Services Committee, “FY2027 NDAA Executive Summary.”
Senate Armed Services Committee, “Committee Completes Markup of the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act.”
U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Cloture Filed on the Motion to Proceed to S. 4784.”

Federal Spending and the Shutdown Debate

Congressional Research Service, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
American Action Forum, “FY2027 Appropriations Progress Report.”
Axios, “GOP Senators Dread a Pre-Election Shutdown Fight.”
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Upcoming Congressional Fiscal Policy Deadlines.”

Bills Coming to the House Floor

H.R. 8595: State Department and Foreign-Aid Spending

H.R. 8595, National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2027.
House Appropriations Committee, “FY2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill Summary.”

H.R. 8720: Campaign Finance Transparency Act

H.R. 8720, Campaign Finance Transparency Act.
House Administration Committee, “H.R. 8720 Committee Markup Materials.”

H.R. 3535: Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act

H.R. 3535, Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act.
Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate for H.R. 3535.”

H.R. 1181: Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act

H.R. 1181, Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.
House Rules Committee, “H.R. 1181 Floor Consideration Materials.”

Election Administration, Voter Data, and Federalism

U.S. Department of Justice, “National Voter Registration Act of 1993.”
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter-Roll Data.”
Reuters, “Justice Department Warns State Officials About Noncitizen Voting.”
Associated Press, “Administration Increases Pressure on State Election Officials.”
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, United States v. Maryland State Board of Elections.
NBC Washington, “Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking Maryland Voter Data.”
Reuters, “Appeals Court Rejects Federal Demand for Michigan Voter Rolls.”

Restoration Paper No. 13

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:06:23 GMT

To My Fellow Americans,

We have a problem.

We have a career politician problem in our republic.

Most Americans already know it, at least in a general sense. We know Washington feels stale. We know the same names seem to stay in power for decades. We know Congress no longer looks like a temporary gathering of citizens sent to represent their neighbors, solve problems, and return home.

But I’m not sure most Americans realize just how bad it is.

As of today, 76 current voting members of Congress have served 20 years or more. Of those, 32 have served 30 years or more. Eleven have served more than 40 years. And two have been in Congress for more than half a century.

That’s not public service. That’s political entrenchment.

The republic we know and love didn’t collapse all at once. It started slowly but began to rot the moment our representatives turned what was supposed to be a temporary civic duty into a lifelong, professional career.

Congress was never meant to be a career. It wasn’t designed to be a ladder for ambition or a comfy landing place for political insiders, party loyalists, and professional fundraisers. It was supposed to be a temp job. You were chosen by your community to go to Washington, D.C., represent your neighbors, and do your duty under the Constitution. Then, you packed your bags and went home to live under the exact same laws you just helped pass.

That last part was the whole point.

Reps were supposed to go home. They were supposed to look their neighbors in the eye and answer for their decisions. They were supposed to be citizens first and lawmakers second.

Instead, we’ve built a permanent, protected, political class. A class that talks constantly about “the American people” on television, but spends most of its days surrounded by consultants, lobbyists, handlers, and donors. Their entire lives revolve less around service and more around preservation – preservation of power, of position, and of the system that sustains them.

And then they ask why the average American feels completely ignored. And they act confused as to why their approval rating sits perpetually in the teens and twenties.

We feel ignored because we are ignored.

We Didn’t Elect Royalty

Congress was never meant to be a country club with elections.

James Madison made this pretty clear in in Federalist No. 57. The House was meant to be open to regular people. Wealth, pedigree, and profession weren’t supposed to be the gatekeepers. Trust, judgment, and character were supposed to matter more than connections.

But that spirit has long since faded.

Yes, the Constitution calls for members to get paid for their service, and they should be. Public service shouldn’t just be for the independently wealthy. But there’s a clear and substantial difference between paying a regular citizen to serve for a brief period and funding a permanent ruling class that never leaves office.

As discussed in Restoration Paper No. 8, The Illusion of Representation, our Congress is just an incumbency factory. Once elected, the job is to stay elected and the whole system bends over backward to make that happen. Their party protects them. Big money donors invest in them. Lobbyists cozy up to them for favors and influence, and the consultants teach them how to sound authentic while saying absolutely nothing.

The longer they stay, the more the machine rewards them. That’s not representation. That’s permanence.

The Problem Isn’t Experience. It’s Detachment.

Look, I’m not saying experience is evil.

We obviously need people who understand how a budget works, how legislation moves, and what the Constitution actually allows. But experience isn’t the same as entrenchment.

A few years of service can produce wisdom, but decades within the system produces detachment.

A representative who learns how the government works can serve the public well, but one who spends a lifetime learning how the system protects itself will come to serve that system instead.

And the issue isn’t that these people served. The issue is that their service became their identity, their career, their brand, and, in many cases, their path to wealth and influence.

When public office became a career, survival became the priority. Every single vote is now weighed against reelection probability. Every crisis is a fundraising email. Every committee hearing is a performance for the media.

The statesman has faded, but the performer remains.

That’s how we get politicians who spend thirty years or more in Washington voting for trillions in debt they’ll never have to pay back, passing thousand-page bills they don’t read, and approving regulations they’ll never personally feel – only to come back to their districts or states shouting that they’re “outsiders” fighting the system.

And finally, Americans are seeing how insulting that is.

Subscribe now

They Don’t Live Like Us

Representation requires more than an address.

It requires shared experience. It requires real connection to daily life in the community.

A true citizen representative understands daily life because he or she lives it. They know the cost of groceries because they buy them. They understand the burden of healthcare because they’re pay the premiums, wait on the same phone systems, and fight for appointments like everyone else. They know the weight of payroll because they’ve actually signed the front of a paycheck, not merely given speeches in front of someone who does.

We need lawmakers who remember exactly what it feels like to be governed.

Farmers. Mechanics. Veterans. Teachers. Nurses. Builders. Small business owners. Regular people with enough wisdom to know that power is dangerous, and enough humility to hand it over to someone else when their time is up.

Instead, we have a credentialed country club that governs from a distance, occasionally allowing the rest of us to choose which members get to stay.

The numbers tell part of the story. Right now, the average tenure in Washington is nearly a decade, but the true issue is the concentration of power over time. Committee chairs, influence, and institutional control accumulate over the years. The median age in the Senate is pushing 65.

Now, I’ll admit it: wisdom matters. Age alone doesn’t make someone unfit for office. But a country can’t stay healthy when its leadership is completely removed from the daily economic pressures, technology, working conditions, family burdens, and cultural reality of its people.

At some point, “experience” is just a polite word for “you’ve been there too damn long.”

These long tenures didn’t happen by accident. They’re primarily the result of two failures. First, we as citizens got too comfortable. We got lazy with our oversight. We stopped watching closely enough, stopped replacing people often enough, and allowed name recognition to be the substitute for accountability.

Second, our representatives turned the job of getting elected into the business staying elected. What was supposed to be temporary is now a permanent campaign operation - one built around fundraising, messaging, party loyalty, and political survival.

That’s how the citizen legislator disappeared and the endless campaign started.

The Endless Campaign Destroyed the Job

We can’t have a citizen legislature when the elections never stop.

Members aren’t just legislating anymore and haven’t been for a long time. Now, they’re constantly fundraising, branding, polling, messaging, posting, and gearing up for the next election cycle. So even when they’re sitting in the Capitol, most of their energy is spent trying to stay there.

So, the question is simple:

Who is truly being served?

It certainly isn’t the guy working two jobs just to keep his head above water. It’s not the parents trying to figure out how to afford groceries this week. It’s not the veteran dealing with red tape at the VA. And it’s not the local shop owner trying to comply with another mountain of federal paperwork.

The attention flows instead to those with permanent guest passes to the club: donors, lobbyists, political committees and corporate interests.

The rest of the country is reduced to photo ops, background for speeches, faces for advertisements and stories for political use – nothing more than props for their performances.

And average Americans are angry because they can see the game now.

They see politicians run on “draining the swamp,” only to jump right in and learn how to swim. They see members rail against debt after voting for it. They see reps condemn bureaucracy after funding it and they see lawmakers complain about a broken system they’re cashing in on.

The contempt members of Congress get from regular Americans is completely earned.

We know the campaigning isn’t on principle. We know it runs on money, access, exposure, and protection. We know who is pulling the strings of our puppet representatives, and it ain’t us.

It’s the party machine. The place where independence is punished and loyalty is rewarded. It’s where our reps stopped being actual representatives of us and became employees of a political corporation.

Employees of the Party Machine

Our citizen legislature died the moment party loyalty came before hometown loyalty.

A representative’s job is to answer to the people who sent them to Washington.

Period.

Not the Speaker of the House. Not the Senate leader. Not the national caucus, the cable news audience, activists on social media and certainly not the donor class.

The people.

But the party machines have turned lawmakers into their corporate shills rather than independent representatives. Leadership controls the money. Leadership controls the committee seats. Leadership controls floor access. Leadership controls public visibility. And leadership controls punishment.

In this system, the lesson is quickly learned:

Align with the machine or be removed by it.

That’s not self-governance – and it hasn’t been for a long time.

A representative who fears their party leadership more than their voters isn’t a representative – they’re a hostage with a title. A Congress that serves the system before the people isn’t an instrument of liberty.

It’s an instrument of decline in desperate need of repair.

Subscribe now

What Fixing It Requires

Reform won’t come easily, because those who benefit from the current system are the same ones needed to change it. That reality may require solutions outside ordinary channels, such as an Article V, Convention of States.

Still, the principles are pretty straightforward:

First, we need shorter sessions. Do the work, pass the budget, debate legislation and then get the hell out of Washington. Members should spend less time in the swamp with the flies and mosquitos of D.C. culture and far more time back in their home districts and states. I have suggested a 240-day working Congress, but only about half of that should be spent in Washington. The rest should be spent back home among the people they represent.

Second, we need term limits. We as Americans have proven we can’t be trusted with voting out permanent incumbents, so need a legal mechanism. We need serious, common-sense limits on how long one can hold federal legislative office. I suggest twelve years total for congressional members. That could be any combination of house and senate terms, but twelve years is enough for anyone.

Serve. Represent. Go home.

Lastly, we need age limits. It’s time we recognize that effective governance requires both experience and sustained capacity. I suggest an age limit ceiling of no older than 75 years of age. That doesn’t mean every person 75 or older is incapable. It simply means the republic has a right to set reasonable limits on the age and tenure of those entrusted with power.

Power doesn’t get safer with familiarity. It just gets easier to justify.

I have other suggestions that I’ll put forth in other areas, but it’s important to note that while those three reforms sound procedural in tone, they actually point to something much deeper. Shorter sessions, term limits and age limits aren’t just technical fixes. They’re reminders of a larger truth.

Elected office isn’t property. It’s not a possession and it’s not a personal inheritance. Nobody has a right to a seat in Congress. It’s a temporary trust handed to ordinary citizens by other ordinary citizens.

And when that trust is treated like a lifetime entitlement, the problem is no longer just political.

It’s moral.

A Moral Obligation

At the end of the day, our republic depends on a simple principle:

The people are sovereign and our representatives are temporary stewards.

When office holders remain indefinitely and treat elections as formalities, that principle is lost.

Temporary service preserves perspective. It reminds the officeholder that authority is borrowed, not owned. That seat belongs to the people. That title belongs to the people. And that power belongs to the people.

It is entrusted, not possessed.

And it must be returned.

The Restoration

Restoring Congress means restoring the simple idea of the citizen legislator.

We need representatives anchored to their communities, not absorbed by D.C.

We need leaders who respect the Constitution as a boundary, not an obstacle.

We need people who seek with reluctance, serve with seriousness, and depart willingly.

A healthy republic doesn’t depend on permanent rulers. It depends on responsible citizens.

What now sounds radical was once ordinary and readily accepted.

If restoring temporary public service feels like a revolution, then it’s a necessary one.

Not a revolution of upheaval, but a revolution of return – back to the first principles that those who govern must remain among the governed.

We don’t need better slogans or more polished professional politicians.

We need citizens with the courage to serve, the discipline to act, and the humility to step aside.

That’s how free people stay free.

In Liberty,
Gary Mullins (Libertas)

Small Change to Help Keep the Publius Project Independent

Gary Mullins | Libertas — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 19:23:50 GMT

When I started this, the goal was simple.

Help regular citizens think seriously again about self-government, constitutional limits, civic responsibility and what it would take to restore a republic that feels increasingly managed by people who no longer answer to us.

That mission isn’t changing.

But the project is growing and I want to build it the right way.

Subscribe now

That means no corporate sponsors.
No political party money.
No political action committee money.
No donor-class leashes.
No chasing stupid algorithms just to stay visible.

I’m building this the natural way.

So, I’ve added paid subscription options for readers who want to support the project and help keep it independent.

Most of the core writing will remain public.

The major essays, the Restoration Papers, the upcoming King for a Year series, civic education pieces, and public facing arguments are meant to be read, shared, debated, and challenged. I don’t want the basic work of civic restoration hidden behind a wall.

Paid supporters will help fund the project and receive some extras along the way: early access to major essays, supporter discussions, Q&A threads, behind-the-scene-drafts, topic input, and eventually downloadable essay collections and special publications like the upcoming Modern Federalist: A Plain-Language Guide to the Ideas Behind the Constitution.

But this isn’t about creating a private club. It’s about keeping a public project independent.

If you stay a free subscriber, I’m grateful you’re here. Reading, sharing, commenting, and challenging these ideas still matters.

If you become a paid supporter, you’re helping build something bigger.

Either way, thank you for being part of this.

The republic was never supposed to be funded by kings, parties, corporations, or permanent political machines.

Neither is this project.

The ideas stay public. Support keeps them independent.

Thank you,

Gary