What'd I do?

A photo of an Appel IIGs, including 3.5" hard drive.

Was at the @archive.org last week and saw an old friend.

Sorry, I've been OOO. If chamber leader doesn't sign legislation, there will be a significant delay in sending onward to WH.

At least at the cmte level, there's things mbrs can do to force the chair to send a favorably reported bill to floor. Don't know about enrolled bills

FY 2027 Legislative Branch Funding Proposals Overview Explore AGI's FY 2027 funding package with policy suggestions for Congress, legislative offices, and U.S. Capitol Police.

We practice what we preach, so here are our recommendations for Appropriators to considered for FY 2027.

americalabs.org/2026/03/02/a...

New “Appropriations Playbook” Unlocks Congress’s Funding Process for Nonprofits and Citizens The American Governance Institute and the Foundation for American Innovation have released “Lobbying on Congressional Appropriations: A Playbook for Nonprofit Advocates” that demystifies this impor…

Here's our appropriations playbook, on how the appropriations process works (and how you can make it work for you).

americalabs.org/2026/03/02/n...

There are few places today where Congress has a real opportunity to write laws. A big one is the appropriations process. That's why I'm so pleased to share with you our appropriations playbook for appropriations advocacy & our recs for what provisions Congress should adopt to strengthen itself.

Forcing the Issue on Use of Force The legal options may be limited, but Congress can still fight for its right to authorize a fight

We cover all this in this week's First Branch Forecast, and also:

• Legislative branch appropriations kick off
• A serious AI office proposal — and why coordination may be the better path

firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/forcing-th...

Without Congress pressing the issue, the president can engage in military adventurism anywhere. Cuba? Greenland?

The same problem exists domestically. What's to limit the president's use of forces against our own citizens?

The deeper question: what kind of institution does Congress want to be?

One that objects episodically & fecklessly?
Or one that forces presidents to be responsive to congress's views before before acting?

That requires loosening the reins on factions willing to press the argument.

If members want to reassert authority, the leverage points are political:

• Sustained public debate
• Repeated votes
• Appropriations constraints
• Widening the aperture beyond one operation to the broader pattern of unilateral force

Legalism alone won’t do it.

Historically, real intra-party conflict over war shaped presidential decision-making.

That friction made presidents more deliberate.

For decades, leadership in both parties have worked to contain those fights — especially inside their own caucuses.

Presidents respond to incentives.

For decades, Congress has funded a massive military establishment and largely suppressed internal factional fights over its use.

It shouldn’t surprise us that presidents overreach and hold on to the war-making tools they grab.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Chadha, Congress lost the legislative veto.

The Court destroyed Congress's balanced approach to war making. Retaking that power requires a veto override, but the president can just act. It's a one-way ratchet.

There's more Congress can do, however.

The war started Friday.

Congress is objecting — some Members threatening a War Powers Resolution, demanding briefings, asking for votes.

That’s not meaningless.

But it’s not sufficient.

This week’s First Branch Forecast explains why.

Interview: Rep. Steny Hoyer We interviewed Rep.

This is a fun one - @americalabs.org and I interviewed Steny Hoyer soon after he announced retirement. Too much to summarize here, check it out

It's the same guy with different glasses, right?

Switching Party Control in the House Mid-Congress Guest author Max Spitzer

Should Republicans lose their majority in the House of Representatives mid-session, how exactly could Democrats assert control? We have the answer to that question from Max Spitzer, who previously served in the House Parliamentarian's Office.

It certainly is. Moving from truth to truthiness is not great.

Announcing the replacement of the CIA Fact Book with the presidential vibe book.

www.cia.gov/stories/stor...

What has happened at the Washington Post is horrible.

a man is standing in a tunnel and talking to a woman . ALT: a man is standing in a tunnel and talking to a woman .

The Senate's response to the House....

So, the filibuster fiasco is going down precisely how @americalabs.org said it would: Facing demands from Luna to kill it, Thune was like "uh, we'll think about it" and that was enough for her

www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...

Huh, I unsubscribed and now they've signed me up once again for their newsletter. Come on, folks. Why is your journalism so good and your IT so bad?

I just canceled my subscription to @wired.com, which is unfortunate. Their reporting is excellent and I want to encourage great journalism. But their website and access to it is awful, especially their app, and I'm so frustrating I'm giving up.

United States Quits Open Government Partnership Civil society groups had pressed U.S. to meet transparency commitments January 28, 2026 — The United States has formally withdrawn from the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a voluntary international collaboration founded in 2011 by eight countries, including the United States, to advance government transparency, participation, and accountability in partnership with domestic civil society organizations.

In March 2025, eleven civil society organizations urged the Open Government Partnership to place the United States under review for "rolling back existing flagship commitments," and calling for U.S. suspension if the administration failed to work with civil society to advance meaningful transparency commitments. A July 2025 letter renewed the request, citing accelerating attacks on government transparency, across anti-corruption efforts, civic space, fiscal openness, justice, and the foundation of open government. A December 2025 OGP report found that "the second Trump administration revoked or replaced several executive orders that supported key commitments, including those related to equity, data transparency, and law enforcement accountability. It also disbanded the federal advisory committee in February 2025. These actions have undermined or halted the continuity and durability of reforms initiated during the action plan cycle." The U.S. government withdrawal statement, signed by General Services Administration Administrator Edward Forst, was replete with misstatements and omits the fact the first Trump administration participated in the Open Government Partnership. The statement takes no responsibility for its dismantling of the domestic Open Government Federal Advisory Committee. Nor does it note the administration's increasing attacks on the press, the removal of data from government websites, the failure to collect and share information about government activities. The following statement may be attributed to Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute and former chair of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee: "The Trump administration is not only the least transparent government in American history; its policies are antithetical to democracy, of which transparency is an essential element. Today's withdrawal from the Open Government Partnership is yet another data point in a broader pattern of opacity by this adminis…

Statement on the U.S. Government's withdrawal from the Open Government Partnership.

Also online here: americalabs.org/2026/01/28/s...

It's not a consultant problem, it's a leadership problem.

I agree that the courts are at best a partial, temporary holding action. They can be useful for buying time, but only up to a point. The Supreme Court and the appellate courts are no longer allies of the Constitutional order.

to be totally dependent on his largess. So out of self preservation, they too may try to keep Congress, and thus themselves, relevant and in a position of influence.

But all that changes once the results are known.

This appropriations fight is the point of inflection. We'll see what happens.

The point of leverage, to what extent it exists, are those Republicans who fear they will lose office in the upcoming election. They are afraid they personally will lose power. (They also may have scruples about what's happening.) And they know Trump is fickle with who he helps & wouldn't want ...

For those who believe that the upcoming elections will be a constraint on Trump, think again. Assuming the elections go forward, are fair, and result in a Democratic House, that's an incentive for Trump to *increase* his disregard of Congress. Why would anyone thing he'd now agree to be constrained?