Forget bipartisan cooperation, a new Gallup poll shows 72% of Americans think political polarization is just going to get worse over the next five years, which paints a bleak picture for any post-midterm scenario. That kind of deep division paralyzes effective governance, leading directly to policy gridlock. So how will this partisan entrenchment actually shape what gets done (or not done) in Congress?
Key Takeaways
- The CBO is projecting a 15% drop in major legislation passed compared to the last two years, a clear signal of coming stagnation.
- Public trust in government has tanked, hitting 27% in 2026 according to Pew Research Center, making it nearly impossible for leaders to build consensus.
- In the last session, the number of House bills passing with real bipartisan support (at least 20% of the minority party) dropped a full 18%, a trend toward pure party-line votes.
- Look for more executive orders and agency rules. The White House has been issuing about 35 EOs a year since the midterms just to get around Congress.
- States are going to have to pick up the slack on policy, especially for things like climate change and the economy, because Washington is stalled.
Congressional Budget Office Projects 15% Decrease in Major Legislation
The 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report just put a number on the problem: they’re forecasting a 15% decrease in major legislative enactments compared to the last two-year cycle. This projection reflects a fundamental inability to get people in a room to agree on critical issues. From my experience watching legislative calendars in previous divided governments, a CBO forecast like this means we’re shifting from trying to pass proactive laws to just managing one crisis after another. We’re going to see fewer big, complete bills that tackle long-term problems like infrastructure or the federal debt, and a lot more last-minute stop-gap funding fights.
The CBO’s model looks at everything from historical voting patterns and committee productivity to the current political mood, and their analysis is clear: even if voters deliver a mandate, the paper-thin margins in Congress make big legislative deals almost impossible. The proposed “National Infrastructure Revitalization Act” is a perfect case study, it died in committee for over six months because of fights over funding and local control. Impasses like that are becoming the rule. The legislative branch ends up unable to adapt to what the country needs, leaving urgent problems to get kicked down the road to the next election cycle.
Public Trust in Government Plummets to 27%
An even more corrosive factor driving gridlock is the total collapse of public trust. The Pew Research Center clocked public trust in government institutions at a mere 27% in 2026. That’s a historic low, and it makes effective governance incredibly difficult. When people don’t trust their elected officials, it’s next to impossible for those officials to rally support for complex or unpopular policies. Any legislative proposal is immediately met with skepticism and filtered through a partisan lens instead of being judged on its merits.
I’ve seen this lack of trust play out in a few predictable ways. First, it fires up the political base on both sides, which makes any compromise look like a betrayal, so lawmakers who fear a primary challenge won’t even think about crossing the aisle. It also makes it easy for outside advocacy groups to mobilize opposition against any perceived government overreach. Just look at the recent debates over federal data privacy laws. Everyone’s worried about data security, but the proposed bills hit a wall because different factions all distrusted the government’s ability to enforce the rules fairly. This creates a nasty feedback loop where the gridlock itself destroys more trust, making future cooperation even less likely.
Bipartisan Bill Passage Drops by 18%
The data confirms what anyone watching Capitol Hill already knows: the idea of bipartisan cooperation is fading fast. In the last session, the number of House bills passing with bipartisan support (defined as 20% or more votes from the minority party) dropped by 18%. This number is a good indicator of legislative health. It shows that very few bills are being written with broad appeal or have any compromise baked in. What we’re seeing instead is the majority party simply ramming legislation through against unified opposition from the minority.
This trend is a huge problem because laws that have a real impact need buy-in from both sides if they’re going to last and be implemented well. When bills squeak through on narrow party-line votes, they become vulnerable to being repealed or gutted the second congressional control changes. The recent “Affordable Energy Transition Act,” for instance, passed with almost no minority support and now faces a totally uncertain future if the House or Senate flips next cycle. This just creates policy instability, making it impossible for businesses or individuals to plan ahead. It means the biggest national challenges, the ones that require a sustained, unified effort, get left to die in the partisan crossfire. The lack of consensus turns lawmaking into a zero-sum game, where one side’s win is the other’s loss, instead of a shared step forward.
Increased Reliance on Executive Orders and Agency Rule-Making
When the legislative branch gets bogged down, the executive branch steps into the power vacuum. We’ve seen the White House issue an average of 35 executive orders annually since the midterms, a major increase from periods of unified government. This heavy reliance on executive orders and agency rule-making is a direct result of Congress being unable to act. Presidents who can’t get their agenda passed turn to these unilateral actions to make policy, whether it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuing new emissions rules or the Department of Homeland Security altering immigration enforcement.
Executive actions may offer a temporary way around the gridlock, but they come with a big set of their own problems. These policies are far less durable than actual laws, since they can be easily undone by the next president. They also get challenged in federal court far more often, leading to long legal battles and more uncertainty. Take the executive order on prescription drug pricing from last year, while it offered some relief, it’s now stuck in litigation with pharmaceutical companies which just shows how shaky this kind of policymaking is. This short-term strategy just amps up political tensions and is seen by Congress as a power grab, straining relations between the branches even more. It’s a symptom of the gridlock, not a cure.
Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: The “States as Laboratories” Myth
There’s a common belief that when Washington is gridlocked, states step up as “laboratories of democracy” and lead the way on policy. I’ve always found this narrative to be overly optimistic, and frankly, it’s misleading in today’s political environment. The idea that states will just smoothly fill the void ignores that the same deep partisan divides exist at the state level, too. It isn’t as simple as DC being paralyzed while all the states productively forge ahead.
Sure, some states will push ambitious policies, especially on things like climate change or economic development. California, for example, is always going to have its own aggressive emissions standards regardless of what the federal government does. But many other states, particularly those with divided governments, will just have their own brand of gridlock where governors and legislatures from opposing parties fight over every little thing. On top of that, relying only on state action creates a confusing patchwork of regulations that’s a nightmare for businesses operating across state lines and deepens inequality for citizens based on where they happen to live. Big issues like national infrastructure or public health crises need a coordinated federal response that state-by-state experiments can’t possibly provide. The “states as laboratories” model really only works when there’s some federal guidance or a shared national goal, neither of which we have in this era of gridlock.
The persistent policy gridlock post-midterms demands a strategic shift in how we approach this. Stop waiting for some grand legislative bargain to appear out of thin air. The only realistic path forward is focusing on incremental, targeted advocacy at both the federal and state levels, using existing agency rule-making procedures, and building weird, cross-partisan coalitions on very narrowly defined issues.
What is policy gridlock?
Policy gridlock is what happens when opposing political parties or branches of government can’t agree on anything, leading to a stalemate. It prevents action on pressing issues, often because different parties control the White House and Congress or because majorities are too slim to overcome opposition.
How do midterms contribute to policy gridlock?
Midterm elections often flip control of one or both houses of Congress, leading to a divided government. When the president’s party is different from the party controlling Congress, their legislative priorities clash, making it much harder to pass laws and fueling policy stagnation.
What are the common consequences of policy gridlock?
The consequences are pretty clear: nothing gets done about big national problems, presidents start relying more on executive orders that can be easily reversed, public trust in government craters, and policy innovation gets pushed down to the states (which creates its own set of problems).
Can policy gridlock ever be beneficial?
Some people argue that gridlock can be a good thing, acting as a brake that prevents bad or hastily-written laws from passing. It can also be a check on government power, stopping one party from pushing through a radical agenda. Most of the time, though, the cost of doing nothing on critical issues outweighs those potential upsides.
What strategies can mitigate policy gridlock?
Mitigating gridlock means fostering bipartisan dialogue, focusing on small, incremental policy wins instead of huge reforms, and finding narrow areas of common ground. Public pressure for compromise can help, as can electoral reforms that encourage more moderate candidates, but those are long-term fixes.
