Divided government does not reduce congressional oversight of how the executive branch conducts foreign policy; rather, it tends to increase oversight activity. Research shows that when the presidency and Congress are controlled by different parties, congressional committees are more aggressive and active in investigating and overseeing the executive branch, including foreign policy matters. This is because partisan incentives drive Congress to scrutinize an opposition-controlled executive more intensely
. Specifically regarding foreign policy, the president generally has greater control and freedom of action compared to domestic policy, often dominating overall foreign policy direction. However, Congress retains a significant role and can exert oversight, especially when controlled by the party opposite the president. Under divided government, Congress is more likely to challenge and investigate the executive’s foreign policy decisions, although the president’s commander-in-chief powers often give the White House an upper hand in military actions
. Historical and empirical evidence indicates that:
- Divided government leads to more congressional oversight hearings and investigations into the executive branch, including foreign policy issues
- When unified government exists, oversight tends to decline, as the president and Congress share party control and policy goals, reducing conflict-driven scrutiny
- Congress uses oversight as a tool to check executive actions, particularly when there is partisan opposition, which is common under divided government
In summary, divided government increases rather than reduces congressional oversight of the executive branch’s conduct of foreign policy, driven by partisan incentives to monitor and challenge the opposing party’s administration. However, the president’s constitutional and practical advantages in foreign policy often limit the effectiveness of this oversight.
