The Casualty List is long this year. That’s the House of Representatives Press Gallery’s term for its list of members who would rather seek another office or retire than run for reelection. This year, it includes 55 members—the second-highest total since Brookings began tracking in 1946, surpassed only during the House banking scandal in 1992.
This year’s results are part of a broader trend. The number of casualties per Congress has grown since the early 2000s, with roughly 10 percent of members leaving at the end of many recent cycles. These departures signal that many members consider their jobs futile, sending a terrible signal to smart and ambitious Americans.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Our country needs capable lawmakers. Congress’s failure to follow traditional lawmaking processes, however, has sidelined members and discouraged talented Americans from seeking elected office. Congress should return to regular order, which will empower members to legislate and attract ambitious talent from across the country.
Today, Congress is ineffective, hostile, and lacks basic camaraderie. Members struggle to legislate, passing only a fraction of the bills they did 60 years ago. Presidents have filled the void, publishing larger and more sweeping executive orders to circumvent congressional gridlock.
Partially in response to executive overreach, Congress has centralized its power. Party leadership in the House and Senate have consolidated control over the legislative process. Lawmaking authority is now effectively vested in a small group of leaders, who craft increasingly partisan legislation.
But these changes came at a cost. As Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute told me, “members centralized power in the House and Senate leadership over a long stretch of years in order to make Congress stronger in the struggle for power with the executive, but the effect of that centralization has actually been to make Congress weaker and leave rank-and-file members with too little to do,” which has “driv[en] away the best potential legislators.”
Leadership achieved this consolidation by eroding “regular order.” Under that traditional process, a bill originates in a House or Senate committee, where members with subject-matter expertise debate, amend, and vote on it. If it passes committee, the bill moves to the floor, where the full chamber debates and offers amendments. After passing one chamber, the bill follows the same steps in the other. Members of the House and Senate then conference to resolve differences between their versions before sending the final version to the president.
This process distributes power, encourages deliberation, and gives members ownership over policy. It’s slower and often messier than leadership-driven legislating and can make it harder to ram through sweeping partisan agendas. But its pace is designed to build consensus, improve legislation through amendment, and preserve Congress’s role as a governing institution.
Regular order was once Congress’s preferred method. In 1983, for example, over 80 percent of legislation considered in the Senate was the product of regular order.
By the 2010s, however, relatively few bills moved this way. Instead, today, Congress increasingly relies on “irregular order.” Under that process, leadership often drafts legislation behind closed doors and brings it directly to the floor for a vote under pressure of impending deadlines. This gives members little time to read, debate, or amend the bill; sidelines committees; and strips power from chairs and ranking members. Rank-and-file lawmakers become spectators who vote based on party directives.
As a result, Congress often functions less like a deliberative body than a stage. Watch an hour of C-Span and witness members deliver speeches clearly designed for social media. They’re rewarded with likes and clicks, while members who quietly negotiate, build coalitions, and try to improve bills are rarely noticed—and, because of congressional gridlock, often fail to pass meaningful legislation.
This environment is demoralizing for lawmakers who joined Congress to legislate. Why endure endless fundraising, travel, and public vilification if the job itself offers little opportunity to pursue meaningful reform? This year’s Casualty List suggests that many believe the role isn’t worth the price.
Some members apparently recognize the problem. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson have called for the return of regular order. This would mean moving legislation through committee markup, floor debate, and individual passage, rather than bundling bills into last-minute omnibus packages. The House has already taken steps in this direction, passing all 12 appropriations bills this year through regular order—an encouraging development, though many of them stalled in the Senate. Returning to the traditional process would re-empower committees, allow less-senior members to shape policy, and reward expertise rather than performative outrage.
The Casualty List continues to grow. Fully reviving regular order would make Congress a place where serious lawmakers can do serious work. Failing that, our most capable Americans will continue to take their talents elsewhere—and the institution at the center of our constitutional system will grow weaker still.
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images