A year after the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of federal agencies in landmark decisions like Loper Bright, Congress still has not taken action to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities as clarified by the court.
Instead, Congress appears to be actively undermining its own effectiveness. It plans to propose significant cuts to the very institutions required to provide expertise, oversight, and support essential for carrying out the responsibilities placed upon them by the judiciary.
This contradiction was highlighted during a recent hearing by the Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the U.S. and the Communist Party of China, focusing on complex global and existential issues surrounding “Algorithms and Authoritarians: Why U.S. AIs Should Lead.”
Meanwhile, on the same day, the House Budget Committee announced a proposal that threatens funding for conference experts who understand and address these pressing issues. This bill suggests slashing the government accountability office’s budget by 50% and reducing the Library of Congress (which houses the Congressional Research Service) by 10%. These cuts would eliminate over a thousand professional jobs just when Congress needs expertise the most.
The Loper Bright decision reversed the long-standing “Chevron Doctrine,” which allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous laws for about four decades. Critics of the old doctrine argued that Congress lacked the capacity to legislate with enough speed or clarity, especially on new issues. Judge Elena Kagan pointed out in discussions that Congress recognizes a gap in potential legislation concerning artificial intelligence, given its difficulty in even anticipating developments a week ahead.
The court majority dismissed this viewpoint, asserting that it is Congress’s responsibility to enact laws directly, regardless of its preferences. If Congress fails to act, the court will take it upon itself to make those decisions.
Now, just a year after the Loper Bright ruling, the validity of those earlier concerns seems increasingly justified.
Lower courts have referred to the decision over 400 times within the first six months following its announcement. Various regulations, from firearm bump stocks to environmental permits, have been challenged or reopened, yet Congress has not moved to review or amend these laws. Instead, it is systematically dismantling its own capabilities.
Congress is expected to legislate more precisely, clarify agency authority, and ensure that laws are practical, interpretable, and enforceable. Achieving this requires specialized knowledge, vigilant oversight, and up-to-date legislative infrastructure. However, instead of bolstering these capacities, Congress is opting to cut them.
This isn’t merely poor timing; it reflects a fundamental failure to adapt to the evolving legal landscape and the significant changes brought about by artificial intelligence. AI is already being used widely in various sectors for tasks such as coding, document analysis, and regulatory simulations. Yet, in Congress, it’s often viewed as a management risk rather than a tool for enhancement.
The House Budget Committee does acknowledge AI’s potential, as its 2025 report discussed the benefits of large-scale language models in improving legislative efficiency and promoting collaboration with entities like the GAO and the Library of Congress.
Unfortunately, those same institutions are strained. The push for innovation exists alongside budgets that strip away the expertise necessary to implement such advancements. This situation effectively resembles asking for advanced vehicles while simultaneously removing their engines.
Loper Bright not only altered legal principles but also shifted the burden of responsibility. If lawmakers wish to introduce regulations, they must draft clearer laws. To achieve their policy goals, they need to legislate effectively. And to govern well in a rapidly changing environment, modernization is critical.
For Congress to reclaim its constitutional role, it must start by rebuilding its internal capabilities. This involves restoring funding for professional support agencies, hiring and retaining staff with legal and technical expertise, and modernizing legislative processes. Yes, this means utilizing AI to enhance research and workflow so Congress can better navigate an era characterized by rapid change.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the responsibility lies squarely with Congress. The real question now isn’t about Congress’s authority, but whether it will invest in the tools and talent necessary to wield that authority effectively.
