Congress Enacted Two Bills Without Presidential Signature
The housing and agricultural relief bills became law in July after remaining unsigned for ten days.
Updated on Oct. 6, 2026 in Legislative Policy
Live Poll
Should the president be required by law to sign bills passed by both chambers of Congress?
Two pieces of legislation, covering housing reform and farmer disaster relief, became federal law in July 2026 after bypassing a presidential signature. The bills were enacted under a constitutional provision that permits measures to become law if the president fails to sign them within 10 days while Congress remains in session.
Why it matters
The president withheld his signature to deny GOP lawmakers the visual optics of a formal signing ceremony. Meanwhile, Congress utilized pro forma sessions to prevent a pocket veto and limit the ability of the executive branch to make recess appointments.
Constitutional law dictates that bills become law after 10 days without a presidential signature provided Congress has not adjourned. This mechanism has resulted in only 9 such enactments over the past 50 years.
The players
Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the current President of the United States who declined to sign the housing and agricultural legislation.
Grover Cleveland
Grover Cleveland holds the record for the most instances of avoiding bill signatures at 283.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body and previously ruled on the constitutionality of administrative appointments.
The details
Congress uses brief, procedural gatherings known as pro forma sessions to maintain legislative status and bypass executive blocking tactics. The recent enactments follow a historical trend, including a 1988 plant shutdown notice bill allowed to pass by President Ronald Reagan.
Timeline
1890: Harvard published a survey regarding the practice of presidential signatures.
1988: President Reagan permitted a factory plant closure bill to pass without a signature.
2014: The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Obama-era NLRB appointments.
July 2026: Two separate bills became law without a signature.
Late 2026: Additional bills could be codified during the lame-duck session.
Political Context
The current use of pro forma sessions serves as a strategic legislative response to maintain control over the appointment process as defined in the 2014 Supreme Court ruling on Obama-era NLRB appointments. Opposition lawmakers argue this procedural maneuver disrupts the intended balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
These enactments finalize policies related to national housing and farmer relief, which may shift regulatory requirements or funding for those specific sectors. Citizens should monitor federal agency notices to understand how these new laws adjust existing compliance obligations or benefit distributions.
The takeaway
The use of pro forma sessions demonstrates the ongoing tension between the legislative and executive branches regarding the enactment of federal law. Understanding these procedural mechanisms provides insight into how Congress can exert its authority even when the president withholds approval.
What happens next
Legislative observers anticipate that additional bills may be processed through similar constitutional channels during the upcoming late 2026 lame-duck session.
Further reading
For more information on the mechanics of federal lawmaking, visit the Legislative Policy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Roll Call.
Live Poll
Should the president be required by law to sign bills passed by both chambers of Congress?
