For any current member of the United States Congress hoping for an increase in pay, the wait will have to continue for at least another year. Once again, both senators and representatives will maintain their current annual earnings of $174,000, an amount that has remained locked in place since 2009. This continuation of the salary freeze became official after President Donald Trump enacted legislation designed to fund the federal government and conclusively end what would go down in history as the longest government shutdown the United States has ever experienced.
While the recently signed bill only ensures comprehensive funding for government operations until January 30, it notably extends financial provisions for the legislative branch through the remainder of the current fiscal year, which concludes at the end of September next year. Contained within that section of the legislation is specific language deliberately barring an automatic cost‑of‑living adjustment—an annual pay increase commonly provided to most federal employees to offset the effects of inflation and maintain purchasing power. Republican Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia, in an interview with Business Insider last July, questioned the fairness of such exclusions, remarking pointedly, “I would like to see how well that would go over if we did that to all federal employees. I mean, do you think that would survive?” His rhetorical skepticism reflects a recurring sentiment among lawmakers who, despite acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue, recognize its implications for equity and morale.
In fact, a nearly identical blocking provision has appeared in every annual appropriations bill for the past sixteen years, forming an enduring congressional tradition. On one level, such restraint is understandable, almost inevitable, given the optics: approving pay raises for lawmakers immediately after a prolonged shutdown that forced hundreds of thousands of federal workers to labor without compensation, disrupted air travel nationwide, and even jeopardized critical nutrition benefits like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would almost certainly provoke a political outcry. Yet, the continuation of wage stagnation carries significant consequences of its own. Because congressional salaries remain static despite the steady upward climb of living costs, many argue that legislative service becomes less financially sustainable for middle‑class candidates and may ultimately discourage talented individuals from seeking office. At the same time, the freeze incentivizes current lawmakers to leave public service for lucrative private‑sector positions, often monetizing their experience and connections.
Interestingly, this issue has generated rare bipartisan alignment between figures who usually occupy opposite ideological corners of the political spectrum. Members of Congress from both parties have, in varying degrees, acknowledged that the freeze in compensation may have gone on too long. Earlier this year, House Speaker Mike Johnson—who, by virtue of his leadership position, receives a higher salary of $223,500, compared with the $174,000 earned by rank‑and‑file members—publicly expressed sympathy for that viewpoint. In comments made while discussing his opposition to stock trading by sitting legislators, Johnson observed, “The salary of Congress has been frozen since 2009. Over time, if we stay on this trajectory, you’re going to have fewer qualified people willing to make the extreme sacrifice required to run for Congress.” His remarks signaled a pragmatic awareness that financial disincentives could erode the quality and diversity of representation over time.
Perhaps unexpectedly, Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez of New York, a prominent progressive Democrat, has voiced a closely aligned perspective. Speaking to Business Insider last year, she argued that if the goal is to ensure that ordinary, working‑class Americans—those without inherited or independent wealth—can afford to serve in Congress, then compensation must reflect economic reality. “If we want working‑class people who don’t rely on independent wealth to represent people in Congress, we have to make it work,” she said, underscoring the importance of pay in fostering socioeconomic diversity among legislators.
Reports from the Congressional Research Service suggest that, if lawmakers had allowed annual cost‑of‑living adjustments to occur automatically since 2009, the base salary for standard members of Congress would now stand at roughly $221,600. This discrepancy highlights not only the cumulative effect of inflation over more than a decade but also the unique financial demands placed on those in public office. Legislators are expected to maintain dual residences—one in their home district or state, and another in Washington, D.C.—a requirement that imposes substantial personal expense in two of the nation’s more costly housing markets.
There was, at one point, a possibility of modest change. Last year, a comprehensive package of government funding bills proposed reinstating the cost‑of‑living increase for the first time in fifteen years, which would have translated into a comparatively small raise—around $6,600—for most members. However, this measure ultimately failed under public pressure, influenced in part by high‑profile criticisms from figures like Elon Musk and others. Their opposition, much of it expressed through social media and amplified by public sentiment, rested on the mistaken belief that the legislation would grant lawmakers a far larger raise than it actually did. As a result, the effort collapsed, and the familiar cycle of salary stagnation resumed, leaving congressional pay unchanged for yet another year.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-members-of-congress-wont-get-a-pay-bump-this-year-2025-11
