For a bill to become law, the House and Senate must pass identical text—word for word, comma for comma. But that's rarely how it works. Each chamber often passes its own version with different provisions, priorities, and details. Congress has three ways to reconcile these differences: sit down and negotiate formally (conference committees), swap proposals back and forth until both agree (ping-pong amendments), or dare the other chamber to reject what you've passed (jamming). The method tells you who has leverage and how badly they need a win.

What are these three methods?

Conference committees bring members from both chambers to the negotiating table. Each chamber appoints conferees—usually senior committee members—who hash out a compromise behind closed doors. The final product, called a conference report, gets an up-or-down vote in both chambers. No amendments allowed. Accept the deal or kill it.

Ping-pong amendments (also called “amendments between the houses”) work like negotiating by text message. One chamber passes a bill, the other changes it and sends it back, repeat until both accept identical language. It’s faster than conference and works well when differences are modest.

Jamming is when one chamber passes a bill and dares the other to reject it. No negotiation offered. It’s not a formal procedure but a power play—forcing a binary choice between accepting a bill you don’t like or killing the issue entirely. Technically, jamming isn’t its own procedure. It’s a variation on ping-pong amendments with one critical twist: sending a bill once and refusing any further negotiation.

Why does it matter?

The method reveals who’s desperate and who’s in control. Conference committees can fail entirely if negotiators deadlock. Ping-ponging only works when both sides keep playing—either chamber can refuse and demand formal conference. Jamming works only when one chamber has enough leverage to make the other blink.

Party leaders and committee chairs avoid conference when possible. Conferences take time, require formal appointment processes, and create targets for opposition messaging. Plus conferees sometimes prioritize their committee’s interests over leadership’s preferences, or cut bipartisan deals leadership didn’t authorize. Ping-ponging and jamming keep control in leadership hands.

When you see jamming, someone has run out of options. The jammed chamber faces a choice: swallow a bill they hate or watch the issue die. The jamming chamber risks getting blamed for refusing to negotiate if things fall apart. It’s a test of who needs the bill more.

Examples

• The 2017 tax overhaul used a conference committee approach to reconcile substantial House-Senate differences on corporate rates, individual brackets, and state tax deductions. Conferees from both chambers negotiated the final package.

• The 2013 government shutdown ended when the Senate passed a clean continuing resolution, sent it to the House where they demanded amendments that eventually failed. The House passed the Senate’s bill without changes. Two rounds and done. It was a very short game of ping pong.

• In 2010, Senate Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act with 60 votes. Then Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown won the special election, destroying Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. The Senate could no longer pass anything new. In the House, Democrats faced a stark choice: accept the Senate bill as-is, warts and all, or watch health reform die. House Speaker Pelosi had members who hated the Senate version—no public option, different subsidy structure, provisions they’d fought against for months. But the Senate couldn’t budge an inch, so the House was forced to accept the Senate’s approved bill. That’s an example of successful jamming.

• In 2017, Senate Republicans tried jamming the House with a “skinny repeal” of the Affordable Care Act . The House refused to guarantee they’d accept it without a conference. When Sen. John McCain voted no at 2 a.m., the jam collapsed. Sometimes the other chamber calls the bluff. That’s an example of failed jamming.

Common myths

Myth: A conference committee is required when chambers pass different bills.
Reality: Conference is optional. Chambers can use ping-pong amendments or one can accept the other’s version. Conference happens only when both chambers agree to it.

Myth: Conference reports can be amended on the House or Senate floors.
Reality: Conference reports get up-or-down votes with no amendments. This “take it or leave it” feature gives conferees enormous power—whatever they negotiate becomes the only option.

Myth: Jamming violates congressional rules.
Reality: Jamming is a political strategy, not a procedural violation. Each chamber can pass whatever it wants. Whether the receiving chamber accepts or demands conference is a political choice with political consequences.

How to track it live

• Congressional Record - Shows floor action when bills move between chambers: http://congress.gov/congressional-record

• Bill status pages - Track amendments, conference reports, and chamber actions: http://congress.gov

• Committee websites - Conference committee appointments and reports: House http://house.gov/committees and Senate https://www.senate.gov/committees/index.htm

Find out more

• Congressional Research Service, “Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An Introduction” (96-708) - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/96-708

• Congressional Research Service, “Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects” (R41003) - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41003

• Congressional Research Service, “Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses” (98-696) - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-696

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

The War Powers Resolution has been law since 1973. No president has ever admitted it legally constrains them. Congress has never successfully used it to stop a war. And yet, every time the United States enters a military conflict, members of Congress reach for it. Understanding why requires knowing what it actually says, what broke it, and what — if anything — is left. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is the War Powers Resolution?

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) in November 1973, over President Nixon’s veto, after Vietnam — a war that cost more than 58,000 American lives and was never formally declared. The law was designed to restore the constitutional balance the Framers intended: the president commands the military, but only Congress [War Clause and AUMF History ⏳] takes the country to war.

The law has three operative parts. A consultation requirement: the president must consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before committing forces to hostilities. A notification requirement: within 48 hours, the president must submit a written report to congressional leaders stating the legal authority invoked and the expected scope and duration. And most critically, a 60-day clock: absent a congressional declaration of war, authorization, or extension, the president must withdraw forces within 60 days (plus 20 days for safe withdrawal).

The law originally included a faster tool — a concurrent resolution directing withdrawal with no presidential signature required. The Supreme Court effectively disabled it in 1983. INS v. Chadha ruled that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional; forcing early withdrawal now requires a joint resolution subject to presidential veto, then a two-thirds override. That threshold has never been reached on a war powers question.

A 1983 Supreme Court ruling quietly gutted Congress's fastest enforcement option. The law originally included a concurrent resolution — a tool requiring no presidential signature — that Congress could use to direct withdrawal. INS v. Chadha ruled that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional; presidents and the Office of Legal Counsel have since treated this as disabling the concurrent resolution mechanism (though the question has never been definitively ruled on as applied to the WPR specifically). Forcing early withdrawal now requires a joint resolution subject to presidential veto, then a two-thirds override in both chambers. That threshold has never been reached on a war powers question.

Why does it matter?

The WPR matters because the Constitution’s war powers clause — Article I, Section 8 — has been losing ground to the executive branch for 75 years. Presidents have committed U.S. forces to Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and Iran without a formal declaration of war. The WPR was Congress’s attempt to draw a line.

Think of the 60-day clock as a SmarTrip card with a low balance. Congress loaded value onto the card in 1973 — 60 days of authorized presidential action — and built in a clear process for adding more: pass an authorization, tap the gate, keep going. But adding value requires someone to actively use the app. In over 50 years, Congress has never chosen to let the balance run out and block the trip. The clock is real. The enforcement is optional.

Every president since Nixon has reinforced this by submitting WPR notifications while simultaneously asserting that the law does not constitutionally apply to the action being reported. This legal two-step — comply formally while denying legal obligation — has allowed the executive branch to avoid a definitive constitutional showdown. Filing the paperwork is not the same as accepting the law’s authority.

Failed WPR votes are not meaningless, however. Each one creates a public record that shapes future electoral accountability — the congressional votes authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 defined presidential campaigns for the better part of a decade.

Examples

• Lebanon (1983): Reagan deployed Marines; Congress passed an 18-month WPR authorization and Reagan signed it — the sole instance of the law operating as designed.

• Kosovo (1999): Clinton’s air campaign exceeded the 60-day clock. The administration argued U.S. forces were not in “hostilities.” Congress funded the operation but declined to authorize it.

• Libya (2011): Obama’s intervention ran well past 60 days. The administration argued the clock had not triggered because U.S. forces were not in “sustained fighting.”

• Iran, June 2025: Trump struck Iranian nuclear facilities. A Senate war powers resolution to restrain further action subsequently failed — lowering the political cost of the February 2026 strikes.

• Iran, February 28, 2026: Trump struck multiple Iranian cities without congressional authorization. A Senate vote on the Kaine-Paul resolution was scheduled for the following week.

Common myths

Myth: The WPR gives Congress a fast way to stop presidential military action.
Reality: The fastest tool — a concurrent resolution requiring no presidential signature — has been treated by every president as disabled since the Supreme Court’s 1983 Chadha ruling. Stopping a president now requires a joint resolution subject to veto, then a two-thirds override in both chambers. That has never happened.

Myth: Presidents who submit WPR notifications are complying with the law.
Reality: Every president since Nixon has submitted notifications while explicitly asserting that the WPR does not legally apply to the action being reported. Filing the paperwork is not the same as accepting the law’s authority.

Myth: The 60-day clock automatically ends military operations.
Reality: The clock is a legal deadline, not an automatic mechanism. Congress must enforce it by refusing to authorize further action. In over 50 years, no Congress has allowed the clock to run out and forced a withdrawal.

How to track it live

• Congress.gov — text and status of current war powers resolutions (search “war powers resolution”): https://congress.gov

• Congressional Research Service — updated legal analysis of WPR notifications: https://crsreports.congress.gov

• Just Security — real-time legal analysis of WPR and executive war powers claims:

  https://www.justsecurity.org

• GovTrack — vote tracking on war powers resolutions: https://www.govtrack.us

Find out more

• War Powers Resolution (full text), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title50-section1541&num=0&edition=prelim
  Congressional Research Service (Matthew C. Weed), Mar. 6, 2019. “The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice.” Report R42699. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42699

• Brookings Institution, Nov. 16, 2023. "War Powers Resolution at 50." Congressional Study Group, Session 31. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/war-powers-resolution-at-50/

• Congressional Research Service (Matthew C. Weed), Dec. 17, 2025. “Understanding the War Powers Resolution.” CRS In Focus IF13134. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13134

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

The filibuster transforms the Senate from a simple majority institution into one where the minority party ⏳ holds veto power over most legislation. It's not in the Constitution, but it shapes nearly every major policy battle in American politics. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is the Filibuster (and Cloture)?

The filibuster is a Senate rule that allows unlimited debate on most bills, effectively requiring 60 votes to end discussion and proceed to a final vote. Any senator can "hold the floor" and speak indefinitely to prevent a vote, though modern filibusters rarely involve actual marathon speeches.

Today's filibuster is mostly procedural—senators simply announce their intent to filibuster, and majority party leadership ⏳ needs 60 votes for “cloture” to end debate. Cloture is the formal Senate procedure that limits remaining debate to 30 hours and forces a final vote. Without those 60 votes for cloture, the bill typically gets shelved rather than debated for days.

Why does it matter?

The filibuster gives the minority party ⏳ enormous power to block the majority party's ⏳ agenda, even when that majority represents significantly more Americans. It forces bipartisan compromise on most legislation or pushes the majority toward procedures like budget reconciliation ↗️ that bypass the 60-vote threshold.

The rule fundamentally changes how senators behave, encouraging them to negotiate across party lines or find alternative legislative pathways. It also explains why so many campaign promises die in the Senate despite party control.

Examples

Famous filibusters include:

• Strom Thurmond's 24-hour speech against civil rights legislation (1957)

• Republican filibusters of Obama's judicial nominees (2009-2013)

• Democratic filibusters of Trump Supreme Court nominees (2017)

• Ongoing filibusters of voting rights and climate legislation

The "nuclear option" has eliminated filibusters for most judicial nominees (2013) and for Supreme Court nominees (2017), but legislative filibusters remain intact (as of Feb 23, 2026).

“Silent” vs. “Talking” Filibuster

Today’s filibuster is a silent filibuster because senators no longer need to continuously speak on the floor to block a bill. Instead, they can signal their intent to filibuster, and the majority must then secure 60 votes for cloture to move forward.

A talking filibuster would require senators who oppose a bill to physically hold the floor and keep speaking in order to delay a vote. If they stop, the Senate could move toward final passage.

Importantly, requiring a talking filibuster would change the cost and visibility of obstruction, but it would not automatically eliminate the 60-vote cloture threshold. That would require the Senate to formally changes its rules.

Common myths

Myth: Senators must speak continuously to maintain a filibuster.
Reality: Modern filibusters are mostly procedural threats that don't require floor speeches.

Myth: The filibuster protects minority rights as the founders intended.
Reality: The filibuster emerged accidentally from rule changes in 1806 and wasn't used strategically until decades later.

Myth: Eliminating the filibuster requires a constitutional amendment.
Reality: Senate rules can be changed with simple majority votes, though it requires procedural maneuvering.

How to track it live

• Senate floor schedule: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/floor_activity_pail.htm

• Cloture vote tracking: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

• C-SPAN Senate coverage: https://www.c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate

• Congress.gov bill status: https://www.congress.gov/

Find out more

• U.S. Senate Powers & Procedures: About Filibusters and Cloture: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

• CRS Report: The Legislative Process on the Senate Floor: An Introduction: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/96-548

• CRS Report: Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30360

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

Presidents have multiple legal tools for imposing tariffs, but they’re not interchangeable. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962) allows tariffs when imports threaten national security. Section 301 of the Trade Act (1974) allows tariffs to punish unfair trade practices. Same outcome—higher import taxes—but different justifications, different processes, different legal foundations. Understanding which law is being used tells you whether there’s serious justification or creative lawyering. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What are Section 232 and Section 301?

Section 232 gives the president authority to impose tariffs or restrictions when the Commerce Department determines that imports threaten national security. The law deliberately leaves “national security” broadly defined, giving presidents significant flexibility. Commerce conducts an investigation (often taking months), determines whether imports threaten security, and makes recommendations. The president then has 90 days to decide whether to act.

Section 301 gives the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate and retaliate against foreign countries’ “unfair trade practices”—intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, discriminatory policies, or trade agreement violations. Either a U.S. company files a complaint or USTR initiates investigation. After hearings and evidence-gathering (often a year or more), USTR determines whether unfair practices exist. If yes, USTR can impose tariffs as retaliation.

The key difference: Section 301 explicitly authorizes tariffs in the statute and has been used for that purpose 130+ times since 1974. Section 232 is more contested.

Why does it matter?

The distinction matters for legal, procedural, and political reasons.

Legal foundation: Section 301 explicitly says “tariffs” and has 50 years of court acceptance. Section 232 is more controversial—critics argue “national security” gets stretched to cover economic concerns that aren’t really about defense.

Process and transparency: Section 301 requires lengthy investigation, public hearings, evidence, and documented findings of specific unfair practices. Section 232 gives presidents more unilateral authority with less procedural constraint.

Scope and accountability: Section 301 targets specific countries for specific unfair practices. Section 232 can target any country for any imports allegedly threatening security. Section 301 is run by USTR (an agency subject to bureaucratic process), while Section 232 authority rests directly with the president.

Examples

Section 232 tariffs:

• Steel and aluminum (2018): Trump imposed 25% steel, 10% aluminum tariffs citing national security; affected dozens of countries

• Automobiles (ongoing): Commerce investigated whether auto imports threaten security; no tariffs imposed yet

Section 301 tariffs:

• China intellectual property (2018-present): After year-long investigation finding forced technology transfer and IP theft, USTR imposed tariffs on $370 billion of Chinese goods (7.5% to 25%)

• China semiconductors and EVs (2024): Additional tariffs up to 100% on electric vehicles, 50% on semiconductors after updated investigations

Common myths

Myth: Section 232 and 301 are just different names for the same presidential tariff power.
Reality: They’re completely different statutes with different processes, justifications, and legal histories. Courts treat them very differently.

Myth: Presidents can choose whichever law is more convenient.
Reality: Each requires specific findings. You can’t use Section 232 to punish unfair practices, or Section 301 to address security threats. The factual predicate matters.

Myth: Section 232 national security claims are always legitimate.
Reality: “National security” has been stretched to cover economic concerns. Whether aluminum from Canada actually threatens U.S. defense capacity is hotly debated.

How to track it live

• Section 232 investigations — Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes a list of all investigations: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/other-areas/office-of-technology-evaluation-ote/section-232-investigations

• Section 301 investigations — USTR maintains comprehensive records: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/enforcement/section-301-investigations

• Federal Register — All tariff actions published here: https://www.federalregister.gov (search on “tariff”)

Find out more

• CRS Report IF11030: U.S. Tariff Policy Overview. January 31, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11030

• CRS Report IF10667: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. April 1, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10667

• CRS Report IF10458: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. April 10, 2014.
  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10458

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) was Congress’s attempt to bring order to presidential emergency powers. Before 1976, the U.S. had been in continuous “emergency” for over 40 years under laws that gave presidents sweeping authority with no time limits or congressional checks. The NEA was supposed to fix this by requiring formal declarations, regular renewals, and giving Congress power to terminate emergencies. It hasn’t worked out quite as planned—America now has dozens of ongoing emergencies, some dating back decades. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is the National Emergencies Act?

The National Emergencies Act is a 1976 federal law establishing procedures for how presidents declare national emergencies and how those emergencies are maintained or terminated.

The president formally declares a national emergency by proclamation or executive order, specifying which statutory authorities are being activated. The declaration must be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress. Emergencies automatically terminate after one year unless the president publishes a notice renewing them—which most do annually.

Congress can terminate any emergency through a joint resolution, which requires majority votes in both chambers and the president’s signature (or two-thirds override of presidential veto). The president must report to Congress every six months on emergency-related expenditures and status.

The NEA itself doesn’t grant any powers—it creates the framework for invoking other laws triggered by emergency declarations, like IEEPA ↗️.

Why does it matter?

The NEA matters because it’s the gateway to extraordinary presidential powers. Declaring an emergency under the NEA unlocks numerous other statutes that give presidents special authorities—economic powers under IEEPA ↗️, military construction authority, personnel authorities, and more.

Before the NEA, emergency powers were chaos. The U.S. had been under declared emergency since the 1930s (originally declared by FDR), and no one was sure which authorities were active or how to terminate them. The NEA was supposed to bring transparency and congressional control.

The irony: The NEA has made it easier for presidents to declare emergencies, not harder. Since 1976, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies. As of 2025, 46 are still ongoing. Congress’s termination power sounds significant but is rarely used—presidents veto termination attempts, and Congress rarely has votes to override.

Examples

Long-running emergencies show the system isn’t temporary:

• Iran (1979-present): Declared during hostage crisis; renewed for 46 years

• September 11 attacks (2001-present): Counterterrorism authority; renewed for 24 years

• Ukraine (2014-present): Russia sanctions after Crimea annexation

• Border security (2019-2021): Declared to redirect military funds for border wall; terminated after two years

Congressional termination attempts typically fail: Border emergency (2019) termination passed Congress but Trump vetoed; Senate failed to override 59-41.

Common myths

Myth: National emergencies are rare and temporary.
Reality: They’re common (77 since 1976) and often permanent (46 still active, some for decades).

Myth: Congress can easily terminate emergencies it doesn’t like.
Reality: Termination requires a joint resolution, which the president can veto. Overriding requires two-thirds of both chambers—very difficult.

Myth: The NEA prevents abuse of emergency powers.
Reality: It provides procedures and transparency but doesn’t substantively limit what qualifies as “emergency” or what powers can be invoked.

How to track it live

• Federal Register — All emergency declarations and renewals: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

• Brennan Center tracking — Comprehensive list of declared emergencies: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/declared-national-emergencies-under-national-emergencies-act

• Congressional Research Service — Regular reports on active emergencies: https://www.congress.gov (search “National Emergencies Act”)

Find out more

• The statute itself: 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title50/USCODE-2023-title50-chap34

• CRS Report 98-505: National Emergency Powers, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-505

• Brennan Center Report: A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives presidents authority to control economic transactions with foreign countries when they declare national emergencies. Think of it as economic wartime powers—except it’s used during peacetime more often than actual conflicts. Congress passed IEEPA to replace a World War I-era law that presidents had stretched to keep America in “emergency” status for over 40 years straight. The new law was supposed to limit presidential power. Whether it succeeded is debatable. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is IEEPA?

IEEPA is a federal statute that allows the president to regulate or prohibit various types of transactions with foreign countries after declaring a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act ↗️. The emergency must originate “in whole or substantial part outside the United States” and pose an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.

Once an emergency is declared, the president can block property and transactions, regulate imports and exports, control foreign exchange and banking, investigate transactions, and compel production of information. These powers come with constraints: Congress can terminate any IEEPA emergency through a joint resolution, and the president must report to Congress on why the emergency was declared and what powers are being used.

Emergencies are supposed to end when the threat does, but in practice many run for decades.

Why does it matter?

IEEPA is one of the most frequently used presidential powers for foreign policy. Since 1977, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under IEEPA—and 46 are still ongoing as of 2025. America has been in continuous economic “emergency” for nearly 50 years.

Presidents use IEEPA for everything from freezing assets of terrorist organizations and drug cartels to blocking transactions with countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The Iran hostage crisis emergency from 1979 is still in effect. So is the emergency over the September 11 attacks from 2001.

The law matters because it gives presidents enormous unilateral power to shape international economic relations without congressional approval. Whether the president is imposing sanctions on a hostile regime or restricting trade in ways that affect American businesses and consumers, IEEPA provides the legal foundation—as long as there’s an emergency declaration to back it up.

Examples

IEEPA emergencies span decades and cover diverse threats:

• Iran hostage crisis (1979-present): Carter froze Iranian assets; emergency still active after 46 years

• September 11 attacks (2001-present): Bush declared emergency for counterterrorism sanctions; still ongoing

• Russia-Ukraine (2014-present): Obama imposed sanctions after Crimea annexation; expanded by successors

• Venezuela (2015-present): Obama declared emergency allowing sanctions on Venezuelan officials

Common myths

Myth: IEEPA gives presidents unlimited economic power.
Reality: The law requires an emergency originating outside the U.S., reporting to Congress, and theoretically ends when threats do. Congress can terminate emergencies.

Myth: IEEPA is only used for sanctions against hostile countries.
Reality: While that’s the most common use, the law’s language is broad enough that presidents test its limits in various ways.

Myth: Congress wrote IEEPA to expand presidential power.
Reality: The opposite. Congress wrote IEEPA in 1977 to constrain presidential power after discovering the U.S. had been in continuous “emergency” since the 1930s.

How to track it live

• Federal Register — All IEEPA declarations and renewals: https://www.federalregister.gov

  Treasury Department OFAC — Administers most IEEPA sanctions: https://ofac.treasury.gov

  Brennan Center tracker — Tracks all declared emergencies: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/declared-national-emergencies-under-national-emergencies-act

Find out more

• CRS Report R45618: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618

• Brennan Center Emergency Powers Project: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/bolster-checks-balances/executive-power/emergency-powers

• The statute itself: 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-35

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

If there’s one thing Congress excels at, it’s missing deadlines. Every fiscal year kicks off on October 1, yet somehow the twelve appropriations bills ⏳ are never ready. Enter the Continuing Resolution, or CR — Washington’s fiscal snooze button. Hit it, and the government keeps running; miss it, and chaos lurks at the federal doorstep. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is a Continuing Resolution?

Think of a Continuing Resolution (CR) as temporary budget legislation that keeps federal agencies operating when annual appropriations bills ⏳ aren’t done by the start of the new fiscal year. Congress passes CR legislation to avoid or end a government shutdown ↗️.

Most CRs simply roll last year’s funding forward: copy-paste, not a budget remix. They may also include limited anomalies⏳ — small adjustments to funding levels or reauthorizations that prevent major disruptions.

CRs can run for days, weeks, or months — however long leadership thinks it’ll take to finish negotiations on full-year spending bills. In practice, Congress often strings together multiple CRs until an omnibus appropriations ⏳ package is ready.

Why does it matter?

CRs are the difference between business-as-usual and federal chaos. Pass one, and agencies keep paying employees and awarding contracts. Fail, and furlough notices fly while public services grind to a halt.

When a CR passes, agencies maintain essential oeprations. When it doesn’t, agencies must begin shutdown procedures — furloughing “nonessential” staff and suspending many public-facing services.

For legislative staffers, each CR becomes pressure point for extracting policy concessions or testing leadership’s leverage. The result is a funding process driven more by brinkmanship than budgeting.

While CRs prevent shutdowns, they also create problems. They freeze spending at outdated levels, delay new projects, and create uncertainty for agencies, grantees, and contractors who can’t plan for the full year.

Examples

• March 2025 (Trump Administration): Senate Minority Leader Schumer reversed course overnight and voted with Republicans to pass a CR, drawing sharp criticism from House Democrats but avoiding a shutdown.

• Fall 2023 (Biden Administration): Congress narrowly avoided a shutdown after last-minute votes extended funding into early 2024.

• December 2022 (Biden Administration): A short-term CR gave lawmakers one extra week to pass a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

• 2018–2019 (Trump Administration): The government partially shut down for 35 days — the longest in history — after a CR lapsed amid disputes over border wall funding.

Common myths

Myth: A CR means the government is fully funded.
Reality: Not quite! It just extends existing funding — no new programs or priorities move forward.

Myth: Agencies can reallocate money under a CR.
Reality: Nope! Agencies are locked into last year’s levels and patterns unless Congress explicitly grants flexibility.

Myth: CRs are harmless.
Reality: Harmless? Only if you love frozen projects, hiring delays, and frantic last-minute spending. Relying on CRs disrupts long-term planning, hampers hiring, and increases operational costs.

How to track it live

• Congress.gov — Track CRs by session. https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%22continuing+resolution%22,.

• House and Senate Appropriations Committees — See where negotiations stand. https://appropriations.house.gov | https://www.appropriations.senate.gov

• Congressional Budget Office — to satisfy all your nerdiest data desires https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

• Agency Shutdown Plans: Search to see which federal offices are closed or scrambling. For example, Federal News Network’s 2025 compiled agency links

Find out more

• CRS Report: Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices, 03/27/2025. — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46595

• CRS Report: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, 01/10/2023. — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46240

• GAO WatchBlog: What is a Continuing Resolution and How Does It Impact Government Operations? 11/03/2022. https://www.gao.gov/blog/what-continuing-resolution-and-how-does-it-impact-government-operations

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

Congress has one job every year: fund the government by October 1. Yet lawmakers occasionally miss even this basic deadline—and when they do, the result is a government shutdown. Offices close, employees work without pay (or don’t work at all), and essential services limp along while “nonessential” ones simply stop. It’s the federal equivalent of forgetting to pay the electric bill, except with more dramatic C-SPAN footage. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is a Government Shutdown?

A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass—or the President refuses to sign—the spending legislation needed to fund federal operations. Without legal authority to spend money, agencies must cease all activities except those deemed “essential” by law.

During a shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal employees face furloughs (unpaid leave) or are required to work without immediate pay. National parks close, passport processing stops, and constituent services grind to a halt. Meanwhile, “essential” personnel—TSA agents, air traffic controllers, federal law enforcement—show up to work but don’t get paychecks until the shutdown ends.

Shutdowns happen when funding lapses because Congress couldn’t agree on a Continuing Resolution ↗️ to extend current funding, or because negotiations on full appropriations bills ⏳ collapsed.

Quick Context: Why “essential” vs. “nonessential”? Federal law distinguishes between activities that must continue during funding lapses (protecting life and property, constitutional obligations) and those that can pause. The labels are legal categories, not value judgments—though “nonessential” employees understandably hate the term.

Why does it matter?

Shutdowns have real consequences. Federal employees miss mortgage payments. Small businesses waiting for contracts or permits face uncertainty. Scientific research gets interrupted. And the dysfunction signals America’s inability to govern itself.

For Congress, shutdowns become high-stakes games of chicken where each party calculates whether they can blame the other side more effectively. The result is legislation-by-crisis rather than deliberate negotiation.

Economically, shutdowns are wasteful. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 35-day shutdown in 2018-2019 cost the economy $11 billion—including $3 billion that will never be recovered. Agencies pay employees retroactively for time they didn’t work, contractors lose revenue they can’t recover, and productivity vanishes.

Examples

• December 22, 2018 – January 25, 2019 (Trump Administration): The longest shutdown in U.S. history—35 days—stemmed from a standoff over border wall funding. Roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.

• October 1-16, 2013 (Obama Administration): A 16-day shutdown resulted from Republican efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act. National parks closed, NASA furloughed most employees, and the dispute ended only when economic pressure mounted.

• November 14-19, 1995; and December 16 - January 6, 1996 (Clinton Administration): Two shutdowns totaling 26 days came from clashes between President Clinton and the Republican Congress. The political fallout damaged the GOP’s public standing.

Common myths

Myth: During shutdowns, nobody works.
Reality: Plenty of people work—they just don’t get paid until it’s over. Air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents, and federal law enforcement all show up. “Essential” work continues; everything else stops.

Myth: Shutdowns save taxpayer money.
Reality: Shutdowns actually cost money. The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) requires back pay for furloughed employees, so taxpayers pay for work that didn’t happen. Plus there are disruption costs that never get recovered.

Myth: The entire government closes.
Reality: Only the parts funded by annual appropriations shut down. Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory spending programs keep running. Military personnel stay on duty. The Postal Service delivers mail.

How to track it live

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — Agency shutdown plans: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

• Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — Federal employee furlough guidance: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/

• Federal News Network — Compiled agency contingency plans, updates, and more: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/

• Congress.gov — Track appropriations legislation and CR status:

  https://www.congress.gov/

Find out more

• CRS Report: Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, 12/10/2018. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34680

• Congressional Budget Office: The Effects of the Partial Shutdown Ending in January 2019, 01/28/2019. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54937

• Public Law 116-1 - Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-116publ1

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

Congress has a straightforward constitutional job: decide how to spend taxpayer money. To do this, the House and Senate are supposed to pass twelve separate appropriations bills each year, dividing up the federal budget into manageable chunks. That’s the plan, anyway. In practice, Congress routinely blows past deadlines, cobbles together Continuing Resolutions ↗️, and eventually jams everything into one massive package at the last possible moment. Welcome to the appropriations process. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What are Appropriations Bills?

Appropriations bills provide federal agencies with budget authority—the legal permission to spend taxpayer dollars. The budget resolution ⏳ sets overall spending targets, but appropriations bills specify exactly how much each agency gets and what they can spend it on.

Congress divides the entire discretionary budget into twelve bills, each managed by different subcommittees. These bills cover everything from defense and veterans’ health care to agriculture programs and transportation infrastructure. Each bill goes through subcommittee markup, full committee consideration, floor debate, and—if all goes well—passage in both chambers before heading to the President’s desk.

The twelve bills are supposed to pass individually before October 1, when the new fiscal year begins. Spoiler alert! That almost never happens anymore. The last time Congress passed all twelve bills separately and on time was 1997.

Quick Context: Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending — Appropriations bills only cover discretionary spending, which Congress decides annually (about 30% of the federal budget). Mandatory spending—Social Security, Medicare, most of Medicaid—runs on autopilot through permanent laws. When Congress fights over appropriations, they’re fighting over less than a third of total federal spending.

Why does it matter?

These bills determine whether agencies can hire staff, launch new programs, award contracts, or maintain existing services. Without them, agencies have no legal authority to spend money—which is why missed deadlines trigger Continuing Resolutions ↗️ or government shutdowns ↗️.

The appropriations process is where Congress exercises its “power of the purse”—one of its most important constitutional tools for checking executive power. Want to constrain a President’s priorities? Cut funding. Want to force agency action? Add specific instructions. Appropriations bills aren’t just about money; they’re about control.

Breaking the budget into twelve bills theoretically allows specialized oversight and thoughtful debate. In practice, though, the process has largely collapsed. Congress now routinely bundles bills together into omnibus packages ⏳ or funds the entire government through CRs, short-circuiting the deliberative process.

The Twelve Appropriations Bills

1. Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA

2. Commerce, Justice, Science (FBI, NASA, NOAA)

3. Defense (Pentagon, military personnel)

4. Energy and Water Development

5. Financial Services and General Government (Treasury, IRS)

6. Homeland Security (Border security, TSA, FEMA)

7. Interior and Environment (National parks, EPA)

8. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (typically the largest non-Defense bill)

9. Legislative Branch (Congressional operations)

10. Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

11. State and Foreign Operations

12. Transportation and HUD

Examples

• FY 2024 (Biden Administration): Congress missed the October 1 deadline and passed four Continuing Resolutions before finally enacting two massive packages in March—six months late.

• FY 2020 (Trump Administration): Congress passed spending through multiple “minibus” packages combining several bills, finishing nearly three months into the fiscal year.

• FY 2009 (Bush/Obama transition): Congress passed an omnibus for the fiscal year that started under Bush but wasn’t finalized until March 2009 under Obama—five months late.

Common myths

Myth: Congress must pass appropriations bills.
Reality: Technically, no! Congress can keep the government running indefinitely through CRs. But CRs freeze funding at old levels and prevent agencies from starting new initiatives, so they’re terrible long-term solutions.

Myth: Appropriations bills are purely about numbers.
Reality: These bills are packed with policy riders—provisions that direct how money can (or can’t) be spent. Ban funding for specific programs? That’s an appropriations rider. The bills become vehicles for policy fights that couldn’t pass on their own.

Myth: The twelve bills divide spending evenly.
Reality: Not even close! The Defense bill typically gets around $850 billion, while the Legislative Branch bill funds Congress itself at around $6 billion. The divisions reflect agency size and mission, not equal slices.

How to track it live

• House Appropriations Committee — Bill text, reports, hearing schedules: https://appropriations.house.gov/

• Senate Appropriations Committee — Includes majority and minority perspectives: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/

• Congress.gov — Track individual bills: https://www.congress.gov/

• Congressional Budget Office — Analysis of appropriations legislation: https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

Find out more

• CRS Report. The Appropriations Process: A Brief Overview, 05/17/2023. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47106

• CRS Report: Authorizations and the Appropriations Process, 05/16/2023. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46497

• CRS Report: The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, 11/28/2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42388

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

Discharge petitions are Congress's democratic safety valve—a way for House members to force consideration of bills that committee chairs ⏳ refuse to bring up. What gets “discharged” is the committee that was holding up the bill - they are no longer “charged” with considering it. The “petition” refers to how this discharge is approved: half the House must sign a petition supporting the move. Pushing this eject button is messy, dramatic, and almost never works. Still, the mere threat can shake up the political stream for a policy issue when the usual channels are jammed. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is a Discharge Petition?

A discharge petition is a process that allows House members to end committee ⏳consideration, and force a floor vote on stalled legislation. Any member can file a discharge petition after a bill has sat in committee for at least 30 legislative days ⏳ (or 7 days for Rules Committee⏳ matters).

Then comes the hard part: the petition itself needs to be signed by a majority of the House—at least 218 members—to succeed. Once it reaches that threshold, the House must vote first on whether to discharge the committee from further consideration of the bill. If that passes, boom: the bill gets a shot at debate and a vote.

Why does it matter?

Committee chairs hold enormous power over which bills advance and which die, slowly and quietly, while committees “consider” them endlessly. A discharge petition is one of the only ways for rank-and-file members—especially those in the minority or frustrated majority factions—to go around the majority party’s leaders.

It’s a dicey move that usually fails because of the high signature threshold and political risks involved. The risk comes from its public nature: adding your name to a discharge petition means everyone sees it. That makes it a great way to signal support for a popular measure to your constituents, but it sends a different message to committee and party leaders who prefer to avoid the topic. Crossing leadership is a fast way to lose friends, subcommittee gavels, and political cover.

When discharge petitions do work, they often involve issues that cross party lines or put members in tough political positions. Because of this, the mere threat of a discharge petition can sometimes persuade committee chairs to act on stalled bills, whether petition signatures reaches 218 or not. In fact, sometimes that’s the whole point.

Examples

Successful discharge petitions are about as rare as Nationals World Series wins—technically possible, but don’t bet your rent money. Here are the big ones:

• Civil Rights Act (1964, Democratic majority): Southern Democrats bottled up civil rights bills in the Judiciary Committee. Supporters used a discharge petition threat to pressure leadership, helping force the Civil Rights Act onto the floor and into law.

• Minimum wage increases (1996 & 2006, Republican majorities): Democrats twice turned to discharge petitions to push wage hikes when GOP leaders resisted. In 1996 they reached 218 signatures, forcing Speaker Newt Gingrich to allow a vote. In 2006 they fell just short, but the pressure spurred Republicans to pass their own version.

• McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform (2002, Republican majority): Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) used a discharge petition to force action on campaign finance reform. Once they hit 218 signatures, Speaker Dennis Hastert had to allow a vote. The bill became the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, reshaping campaign finance rules.

To be more specific: only about 3% of discharge petitions filed since 1931 have actually forced floor votes.

Common myths

Myth: Discharge petitions are a new tool used by frustrated minorities.
Reality: The procedure has existed since 1910 and has been used by both parties.

Myth: Getting 218 signatures guarantees a floor vote.
Reality: The House must still vote to actually discharge the committee, and that can fail.

Myth: Discharge petitions only work for bipartisan issues.
Reality: Usually, yes. But not always. Some successful petitions were driven by one party pushing hard enough.

How to track it live

• House Clerk's discharge petition database: https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition

• Congressional Record: Weekly updates list who signed what. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record

• Individual member websites: Many lawmakers brag (or quietly admit) when they sign. Find them here: https://www.house.gov/representatives

Find out more

• CRS Report R45920: Discharge Procedure in the House: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45920

• U.S. House Rules and Manual: Search for “discharge motions”: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/hman/

• Who Controls the House?: The Discharge Petition and Legislative Power in the New Deal Congress dives into the history of this legislative procedure, through captivating stories: https://history.house.gov/Blog/2023/July/7-20-Discharge-Petitions/

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →

What are Backgrounders?
They’re concise, practical explainers that unpack key concepts, processes, and tools in policymaking. Each Backgrounder is designed to give you:

• Clarity – plain-language explanations without jargon.

• Context – why it matters in real-world policy work.

• Resources – links to authoritative sources you can trust.

How to Use This Section

• New Backgrounders are added regularly. You’ll always see the most recent ones listed below.

• This pinned guide will stay at the top so you can easily orient yourself.

• Each Backgrounder is self-contained, so you can read them in any order.

💡 Tip: If you’re reading one of my main policy analysis essays and see a legislative term you don’t recognize, chances are there’s a backgrounder linked to it here.

Something missing? Click the button below to suggest a new addition or update.

Make a Suggestion

Budget reconciliation might sound like accounting, but it's actually one of the most powerful tools in Congress. While most bills need 60 votes to pass the Senate, reconciliation bills only need 51—making them the preferred vehicle for major policy changes in our polarized era. (Terms with ↗️ link to related backgrounders; ⏳ indicates a future resource.)

What is Budget Reconciliation?

Budget reconciliation is a special legislative process that allows the majority party ⏳ to pass certain budget-related bills with simple majority votes in both chambers. Unlike regular legislation, reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered ↗️ in the Senate, meaning they need only 51 votes instead of the usual 60 required to overcome procedural hurdles.

The majority party leadership ⏳ starts the process by crafting a budget resolution that includes "reconciliation instructions" directing specific committees to change spending, revenue, or debt limit policies by certain amounts. Committees then craft legislation to meet those targets through committee markup sessions ⏳, and those bills get bundled together for fast-track consideration.

Why does it matter?

In today's highly polarized Senate, where 60 votes are needed for most bills due to the filibuster, reconciliation has become the majority party's primary vehicle for major policy changes. The minority party can offer amendments ⏳ and alternatives during committee markup and floor consideration ⏳, but they cannot block the basic process once the majority decides to use it.

The majority party can pass a maximum of three reconciliation bills per year—one each for spending, revenue, and debt limit changes—though in practice it often combines them into fewer bills.

Examples

Major laws passed through reconciliation include:

• Tax Reform Act of 1986

• Bush tax cuts (2001, 2003)

• Affordable Care Act changes (2010)

• Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017)

• American Rescue Plan Act (2021)

• Inflation Reduction Act (2022)

Common myths

Myth: Reconciliation is a recent partisan weapon.
Reality: The process was created in 1974 and has been used by both parties for decades.

Myth: Anything can be included in reconciliation.
Reality: The Byrd Rule ⏳ strictly limits reconciliation to provisions that directly affect federal spending or revenue.

Myth: Reconciliation bills can't be amended.
Reality: They face the same amendment process as other bills, just with time limits.

How to track it live

• Congressional Budget Office: https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

• House Budget Committee: https://democrats-budget.house.gov/

• Senate Budget Committee: https://www.budget.senate.gov/

• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: https://www.crfb.org/

• Congress.gov bill tracking: https://www.congress.gov/

Find out more

• CRS Report: The Budget Reconciliation Process: Frequently Asked Questions: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30862

• CRS Report: Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted into Law: 1980–2022: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46217

• CBO FAQ on Cost Estimates: https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/ce-faq

← Backgrounders TOC

Help Build the Backgrounders Library →