The People's Ledger
A Plain-English Look at What Congress is Actually Debating, Passing, and Funding
Week Ending August 1, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.