Jamie Raskin urges Congress to reassert supremacy

restore Congress – Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin argues that the Constitution makes Congress the “predominant” branch and warns that presidents have usurped congressional power—fueled, he says, by GOP congressional inaction. Writing for a July/August 2026 issue of The Nation, Raski

When Jamie Raskin talks about “co-equal” branches of government, he doesn’t do it like a professor clarifying a term. He does it like someone watching a system he helped defend get bent out of shape.

In a July/August 2026 article titled “‘Co-Equal’ No More. ” the Maryland Democrat pushes back hard on the idea that Congress. the president and the Supreme Court stand on equal footing. He calls the “co-equal” framing “confec[t]ed nonsense” and argues the Constitution places Congress first—rooting that claim in Article I’s sweeping grant of legislative power and in James Madison’s description of Congress as the “predominant” branch in Federalist No. 51.

Raskin’s central point is not just rhetorical. He links the modern state of American politics—what he describes as presidential overreach and congressional complicity—to the way power is actually supposed to work under the founding documents. In his telling, the country moved away from representative government and toward what he depicts as executive usurpation.

He begins by emphasizing that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never use the phrase “co-equal.” He also notes that the term appears only “a few” times in The Federalist Papers. not to characterize the relationship among the three branches as equals. but for other comparisons—such as the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate. or the national government and the states.

From there, he moves into a close reading of the document’s architecture. He quotes the Constitution’s opening command: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” He points to Article I’s enumerated authorities—taxation and paying debts; appropriating and borrowing money; regulating commerce domestically and internationally; establishing the Postal Service; declaring war and raising armies; calling forth militias to stop insurrections and invasions; governing the federal district; and making laws “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”.

Only after that. he argues. comes Article II. where executive power is “carefully cabined.” Raskin cites Section 1’s presidential oath to “preserve. protect and defend the Constitution. ” the provision that gives the president a salary while denying the right to receive “any other Emolument from the United States. ” and Section 4’s requirement that the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for. and Conviction of. Treason. Bribery. or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”.

He asks a pointed question: if the branches are truly co-equal, why would Congress have the power to impeach, try, convict, remove, and permanently disqualify a president while the president has no comparable power over Congress.

He then turns to what he calls the president’s limited function. The president’s job. in Raskin’s framing. is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. ” not to “thwart[]” or rewrite or impound them. He cites the commander-in-chief language—“of the Army and Navy of the United States. and of the Militia of the several States. when called into the actual Service of the United States.”—and notes that the president may veto legislation passed by Congress. but the veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote.

Raskin also brings judicial power into the argument. but in a way that reinforces his preference for democratic representation over courts. He quotes Chief Justice John Marshall’s line from Marbury v. Madison (1803): in conflicts between Congress and the president or between “the people and the government. ” it is “emphatically the province and duty” of the federal judiciary “to say what the law is.” He says this responsibility implies judicial review over the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.

Yet he argues a strong democracy should not depend “on judges,” especially Supreme Court justices he describes as “undependable,” to ensure the voices of voters are heard. He says elected representatives are supposed to do that work.

The article then shifts from constitutional scaffolding to a list—sometimes furious in tone—of actions Raskin attributes to the Trump presidency and to what he frames as congressional inaction.

He references a war-making contrast. He says the framers were “emphatic about congressional control over the decision to go to war. ” but that Congress “never declared this brutal and slapdash war on Iran” and never authorized it. He adds that President Donald Trump and his inner circle turned for advice to “the co-equal autocratic strongmen of Saudi Arabia and Israel. ” naming Mohammed bin Salman and Benjamin Netanyahu. whom Raskin says replaced “the House of Representatives and the Senate” as decision-makers.

Raskin also says Trump did not comply with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. which he describes as authorizing unilateral presidential military action only to repel an “actual or imminent military attack on the United States.” He calls the resulting conflict a “nightmarish folly” and writes that it has “already cost America around $2 billion a day and destroyed thousands of human lives.”.

He extends the argument to spending and executive control of funds. He writes that Trump. in what he calls his “day one” second term. has “trampling congressional spending powers.” He says Trump impounded funds in “blatant violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.” He also says Trump withheld mandatory spending for schools. healthcare. clean-energy infrastructure. disaster preparedness. and other programs he opposes. and cut off legislated spending to states and cities as leverage in policy debates over immigration.

Raskin says Trump went further by dismantling and gutting departments, agencies, and programs established and funded by Congress, naming the US Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In contrast. he argues Trump spent taxpayer money on what he characterizes as purposes not authorized by Congress. including what he calls a “fraudulent Board of Peace. ” a “mysterious entity either public or private (still no one knows) without any legal standing.” He writes that the board assembled “billions of dollars” from “autocrats all over the world” and that Trump appointed himself “Chairman for Life.”.

He also cites two Department of Justice moves. First. he says the Department of Justice “wrote a $1.25 million check” to Michael Flynn. whom he describes as Trump’s “disgraced former national security adviser. ” after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about contact with Russian government officials and “repeatedly affirmed his crimes under oath.” Raskin says Trump recognized Flynn “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” He adds that Raskin believes DOJ is now rewarding Flynn with taxpayer money to “settle” Flynn’s case against the government. which Raskin says the government had already “won decisively in federal court.”.

Second. Raskin says Trump “settled” a “meaningless and bogus $10 billion lawsuit” with an agreement by DOJ to end “all investigations of Trump and the Trump family” and to create a $1.8 billion political slush fund for Trump to dole out to the Proud Boys. the Oath Keepers. and other rioters. insurrectionists. and political partners.

He then says Trump imposed a new kind of tax unilaterally. Raskin writes that Trump is “the first president in US history” to impose a massive presidential tax through “chaotic. illegal. and unconstitutional tariffs.” He argues the scheme involved “hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous costs” and says even Trump’s own “stacked-and-packed Supreme Court” had to strike down his tariffs as outside the president’s delegated authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Across these claims, Raskin ties his constitutional argument to what he calls a political failure by Congress. He writes that “the narrow GOP majorities hanging on in Congress” acted as “willing accomplices” to Trump’s “blatant crimes against the Constitution.” He says the framers expected public servants to defend their own branches. but that Republicans. in his view. did not even vote to impeach or convict Trump in 2021 when he incited and unleashed a mob to storm the Capitol while Raskin and his colleagues were meeting to certify the presidential election on January 6. He writes that this term. with a “occasional honorable exception” of Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie. Republicans have opposed efforts to activate the War Powers Act. claw back spending authority. block Trump’s tariff onslaught. and exercise legislative oversight.

He adds another stark criticism: he says House Republicans do not “pretend” to be Trump’s “co-equals” and behave “just like cult members bowing and scraping” and “begging for rides on Air Force One.”

The article’s final section turns toward November’s elections. Raskin writes that this November gives the chance to elect “concurrent Democratic majorities” to reestablish the rule of law. dismantle what he calls “the most extraordinary presidential corruption America has ever seen. ” and restore Congress’s institutional leadership.

He argues that restoring Congress’s authority also depends on protecting voting rights. He says Democrats must “protect voting rights for all” and put the country back on a “democracy growth track.” He lays out what he calls necessary reforms: shutting down voter-suppression and right-wing gerrymander schemes; guaranteeing majority electoral winners with ranked-choice voting; replacing the Electoral College with the “National Popular Vote plan”; and pursuing statehood—he writes “not for Canada. Greenland. and Panama. ” but for the people in Puerto Rico and Washington. DC—describing them as “millions of unrepresented and disenfranchised American citizens” demanding full political rights.

He also calls for a constitutional amendment to guarantee voting rights for all citizens, majority rule, fair districting, and proportional representation.

From there, Raskin ties his constitutional thesis to party priorities and legislative action. He writes that in Congress. Democrats should fight “not to become institutional ‘co-equals’” with the person responsible for faithfully executing laws. but to be Congress’s “preeminent institutional champions” for progress toward “a more perfect union.”.

The piece lands as a warning about how quickly constitutional terms can turn into political cover—and how much is at stake when Congress fails to assert the power it is explicitly given.

Jamie Raskin Congress separation of powers co-equal branches Article I Federalist No. 51 War Powers Resolution Impoundment Control Act tariffs voting rights ranked-choice voting National Popular Vote Electoral College Puerto Rico statehood Washington DC statehood