‍This weekly newsletter scrapes together what's happening within policy debates that are relevant to you. Our goal is to take you beneath and beyond the headlines so you can take action.

Congress is getting roasted for not doing enough to push back against the Trump administration’s growing influence over policy. Some say they’re playing chicken, others call them lame ducks.

In political speak, a “lame duck” is an elected official who’s lost an election or is in their final term—essentially, holding power, but with little political influence.

Right now, Congress isn’t technically in lame duck mode. But it might seem that way if the executive branch has near-total say over government priorities and funding.

But here’s the thing—Congress is still making moves. On Tuesday alone, the Senate introduced 20 new bills according to the Congressional Record. So, the real question is: Do these bills reflect the issues that you care about?

‍

Zinger: A Quacky Amendment

The 20th Amendment was supposed to eliminate lame-duck sessions—but it backfired.

Reformers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were fed up with defeated lawmakers selling their votes on their way out the door. The worst case came in 1922, when outrage over corruption led Senator George Norris (R-NE) to push for an overhaul.

The 20th Amendment, from 1933, moved Congress’s start date from March 4 to January 3—giving newly elected members just two months instead of four before taking office. The idea was that lame ducks would disappear entirely.

It didn’t quite work out, however. Congress continues to hold lame duck sessions today, passing major legislation between November and January. In some cases, these sessions are productive. In others, they let unaccountable legislators push through last-minute deals before leaving office. What can we say—it’s a bit of a quacky system.