The United States government was built on the idea that no single person or branch should have more power than the other. The Constitution created a system of checks and balances, dividing authority among the legislative, executive and judicial branches so each could limit the others. In theory, this system was supposed to prevent abuses of power and protect democracy.
In recent times, many Americans have begun to question whether those checks and balances are still in place. As conflicts like the escalating war with Iran unfold and Congress struggles to assert its authority over presidential military actions, Americans are beginning to argue that the balance of power envisioned in 1776 is growing weak. When one branch gains too much control or when the others fail to challenge it, we are forced to ask: Where did our checks and balances go?
In recent news, President Donald Trump authorized military action against Iran, which escalated tensions between the two countries. Iran later retaliated by striking a U.S. military base, bringing both nations closer to an open conflict. For many Americans, the concern was not only the risk of war but also the process behind the decision.
Under the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war. Yet in situations like this, decisions that affect millions of people sometimes move forward without clear congressional approval or extended debate. These decisions also happen as a result of loopholes of the War Powers Act.
The situation calls into question the role of the legislative branch. Congress was designed to represent the American people and serve as a check on presidential authority, particularly in matters of war. When lawmakers fail to challenge or closely examine such decisions, critics argue the system intended to prevent concentrated power can instead weaken. Checks and balances depend on each branch of government actively exercising its authority. When one branch steps back, the balance of power shifts, eliminating the necessary checks and balances.
Concerns about the strength of those checks do not stop at foreign policy. Similar tensions appear in immigration debates, where federal and state governments often disagree over authority and responsibility. Recently, I spoke with California Gov. Gavin Newsom about the state’s immigration policies. During that conversation I noticed a contrast between how state leaders approach the issue and how it is handled at the federal level.
Newsom pointed to policies focused on cooperation between state institutions and immigrant communities, arguing that local governments must respond directly to the needs of the people living in their area. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to violate typical enforcement framework, border security measures and broader national policy frameworks.
These tensions have shown that, although it should not be, the American system of government is incredibly nuanced. The nation’s founders created checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power, but they also expected each branch to defend its constitutional responsibilities.
As political divisions deepen and the political spectrum polarizes, those responsibilities can become harder to carry out. Instead of checking one another, branches of government may avoid confrontation or become too close with each other which can lead to fear and corruption.
That does not mean the system has stopped functioning. Courts continue to review executive actions. Additionally, Congress retains the power to pass legislation and conduct investigations. State governments also play an important role in shaping policy. However, the strength of those safeguards ultimately depends on whether leaders choose to use them.
All of this causes me to wonder, where did those safeguards go?
