The American system of government was built on a simple but powerful principle: no single branch should be able to dominate the others.

For much of U.S. history, Congress, the courts, and the press operated as institutional counterweights capable of limiting executive power, exposing abuses, and defending constitutional norms.

Today, however, America’s checks and balances face unprecedented strain. While none of these institutions have completely failed, all three are functioning less effectively, less consistently, and more politically than the system’s designers ever envisioned. The result is an uneven and increasingly fragile balance in which oversight still exists—but often only in weakened or reactive forms.

Below is a comprehensive examination of each pillar: how it once functioned, how it functions today, and where its vulnerabilities lie.

1. Congress: The Weakest It Has Been in Modern History

Congress was intended to be the most powerful branch of government. The founders gave it authority over war, spending, lawmaking, and oversight precisely to prevent an overly dominant executive. But over the last several decades, Congress has steadily weakened itself.

It still functions—but not as intended.

1.1 Partisan Polarization Has Paralyzed Legislative Oversight

Oversight used to be bipartisan, even during heated political eras. Congressional committees investigated presidents of both parties, and lawmakers prioritized institutional duty over party loyalty.

Today, oversight is deeply partisan:

• When Congress is controlled by the same party as the president, investigations are often blocked.

• When the opposition party leads, investigations sometimes become political theater rather than genuine fact-finding.

• Subpoenas are ignored or delayed, sometimes for years.

• Complex scandals are reframed as partisan narratives rather than constitutional questions.

The result: Investigations rarely lead to meaningful accountability.

1.2 Congress Has Delegated Its Power to the Executive Branch

Instead of writing detailed laws, Congress increasingly passes broad, vague statutes that leave major decisions to federal agencies. This gives the executive immense regulatory power.

Examples include:

• sweeping national emergency provisions

• broad authorizations for military force

• regulatory frameworks where agencies interpret crucial details

By passing responsibility to the executive, Congress reduces its own workload—but also its relevance.

1.3 Congress No Longer Defends Its Constitutional Turf

In earlier eras, Congress fought fiercely to defend its powers:

• Presidents who ignored subpoenas faced immediate legal pushback.

• Lawmakers protected the budget process from executive interference.

• War powers were jealously guarded.

Today, Congress rarely asserts itself. Even when the executive bypasses it, lawmakers often accept the situation rather than reassert constitutional authority.

Verdict: Congress still operates, but it no longer functions as an assertive, independent counterbalance. It is reactive, polarized, and institutionally weakened.

2. The Courts: Still Independent, But Under Pressure

The judiciary remains the strongest functioning check on executive power—but it is not immune to political dynamics.

2.1 The Courts Still Block Unconstitutional Actions

Across multiple administrations—regardless of party—the judiciary has struck down:

• unlawful executive orders

• regulatory overreach

• abuses of emergency powers

• unconstitutional restrictions on civil liberties

This demonstrates that courts still play a vital role in maintaining constitutional boundaries.

2.2 However, Judicial Independence Is Under Increasing Strain

Several trends reflect growing political pressure on the courts:

a. Highly partisan judicial appointments

Federal judges were always political to some degree, but today:

• confirmation battles are openly ideological

• courts are increasingly framed as partisan institutions

• decisions are judged by perceived party loyalty rather than legal reasoning

This erodes public trust and encourages executive defiance.

b. Presidents increasingly challenge the legitimacy of courts

Executives now frequently:

• attack judges’ credibility

• portray court rulings as politically motivated

• encourage supporters to distrust judicial outcomes

This kind of rhetoric can weaken the perceived authority of the judiciary, even when its legal powers remain intact.

c. Courts move slowly compared to executive speed

Executives can make sweeping changes in days; courts can take months or years to respond. This time lag allows many actions to take effect before legal challenges conclude.

Verdict: The courts remain the most functional check in the system—but their authority is increasingly contested, politicized, and tested.

3. The Media: A Check That Still Exists, But Fragmented and Distrusted

The press has historically played an essential role in exposing government wrongdoing—from Watergate to intelligence abuses to financial scandals. But the media landscape of today is fundamentally different from the past.

3.1 Traditional Media Still Performs Investigative Work

Leading outlets continue to uncover:

• corruption

• misuse of public funds

• regulatory failures

• wrongdoing by officials

Investigative journalism still influences public opinion and occasionally legislative action.

3.2 But the Media No Longer Functions as a Unified National Check

Today’s information environment is fragmented:

• Cable news outlets amplify partisan narratives.

• Social media platforms accelerate misinformation.

• Audiences choose outlets that confirm their beliefs.

• News is consumed tribally rather than nationally.

This fragmentation means:

• Facts are no longer universally accepted.

• Exposés rarely shift opinions across political lines.

• Government officials can discredit reporting by appealing to ideological media ecosystems.

In a fractured media landscape, the ability of journalism to hold power accountable is fundamentally weakened.

3.3 Political actors now bypass the press entirely

Executives increasingly communicate directly through:

• social media

• partisan platforms

• friendly commentators

• mass rallies

This bypasses scrutiny and reduces the effectiveness of traditional journalism.

Verdict: The media still functions as a watchdog, but its ability to influence the public and restrain the executive is weaker than at any time in generations.

4. So Are Checks and Balances Still Working?

A nuanced answer is necessary.

They are working in form—but not always in substance.

• Congress still exists but increasingly chooses partisanship over accountability.

• Courts still uphold the Constitution but face skepticism, delay, and political attacks.

• The press still uncovers wrongdoing but struggles to shape national consensus.

They are functioning—but not as intended.

The founders envisioned rival institutions competing to restrain one another. Today, political loyalty often overrides institutional loyalty.

The system is not broken. But it is strained, weakened, and increasingly vulnerable.

5. The Consequence: A System More Dependent on Executive Self-Restraint

Because Congress, the courts, and the media are less able or willing to restrain the executive, the system depends more on:

• presidential norms

• the character of leaders

• informal traditions

• internal ethics within the executive branch

This is not how a constitutional republic is meant to function. A system dependent on individual restraint rather than institutional defense is inherently fragile.

Checks and Balances Still Exist, But They No Longer Guarantee Balance

America’s checks and balances have not collapsed—but they have eroded. They can still stop extreme abuses, but they increasingly fail to constrain systemic overreach. They function, but often inconsistently, and increasingly through the lens of partisanship rather than constitutional responsibility.

The long-term health of the system depends on whether these institutions can revive their independence—or whether executive dominance becomes the new normal.