Article Body
The 119th Congress Is Losing Staff Earlier Than It Should
Flat budgets do not keep staffing flat.
House staffing usually shifts during the year. Some decline between February and March is normal, especially as offices adjust after the start of a new session. But the newest HillClimbers data shows that the second session of the 119th Congress is not just following a routine staffing pattern. It is showing one of the sharper early-year staffing declines in the recent historical comparison.
From the beginning of February to the end of March, House staffing excluding interns fell from 6,848 to 6,779 staffers. That is a decline of 69 staff, or 1.01%.
Across the second sessions of the 115th through 119th Congresses, House staffing declined by an average of 0.83% over the same period. The 119th Congress is worse than that average.
House staffing is not collapsing. But the early-2026 decline is larger than the normal pattern.
This analysis focuses on permanent staff capacity, which is why it excludes interns. HillClimbers’ public salary and staffing data for All House Staff - No Interns provides a cleaner view of the workforce that runs legislative, district, communications, administrative, constituent-service, and leadership operations.
The only second-session comparison with a steeper Feb-to-March decline was the 117th Congress, which fell 1.13% from February 1 to March 31.
That comparison matters. But it should not be misread.
The 117th Congress and 119th Congress both show sharp early-year staffing declines. The causes appear very different.
Daily House Staffing Levels Are Falling Again in 2026
The 117th Congress Was a Workforce Shock
The second session of the 117th Congress began in early 2022.
That was not a normal operating environment for Capitol Hill.
House offices were still dealing with the effects of the pandemic. Staff were working through the institutional aftermath of January 6. The national labor market was in the middle of the Great Resignation. Congressional staff dissatisfaction over pay, working conditions, retention, equity, and office culture was becoming unusually public.
That same period also preceded major congressional workplace reforms. The large FY2022 increase in the Member Representational Allowance, or MRA, was moving through the appropriations process in March 2022. The House staff minimum salary floor was not announced until May 2022 and did not take effect until later that year.
In other words, the 117th Congress staffing decline occurred before the major pay and budget responses had time to stabilize offices.
That makes the 117th a useful comparison, but not a clean precedent.
The 117th looks like a workforce shock. The 119th looks more like a capacity squeeze.
Readers who want the broader history of House staffing limits, the 18+4 framework, and MRA structure can review HillClimbers’ explainer on how congressional staffing works.
The 119th Congress Has a Different Problem
The 119th Congress is operating in a different climate.
The post-2021 salary increases already happened. The MRA increases already reshaped office payroll capacity. House staff pay improved significantly after years of pressure. HillClimbers has already shown that the average House staff salary jumps nearly $10,000 when interns are excluded, and that distinction remains important for understanding the permanent workforce.
But that improvement is now running into a new constraint: flat budgets.
Congressional offices have had to absorb higher salary expectations, rising operating costs, district demands, technology needs, constituent communication costs, and staff retention pressure without the same pace of budget growth. HillClimbers previously analyzed this broader pattern in Congressional Staffing Budget Pressure.
The new 2026 staffing data fits that pattern.
The 119th Congress is not experiencing the same kind of external labor shock that defined early 2022. Instead, offices appear to be operating in the aftermath of the pay correction, but without enough ongoing budget growth to sustain the staffing levels that correction was supposed to support.
The 117th was a workforce shock. The 119th is a budget-capacity problem.
The 2nd Session Feb-to-March Decline Is Bigger Than Usual
The five-Congress comparison makes the 119th stand out.
From February 1 to March 31:
- The 115th Congress declined 0.80%
- The 116th Congress declined 0.35%
- The 117th Congress declined 1.13%
- The 118th Congress declined 0.85%
- The 119th Congress declined 1.01%
The average decline across the five Congresses was 0.83%.
The 119th is not the worst in the series. But it is clearly worse than the average and very close to the 117th.
That is the core finding.
The 117th had a severe early-year staffing decline during a period of visible workplace instability. The 119th is showing a nearly comparable decline after the institution already made major investments in staff pay.
That should concern anyone watching congressional capacity.
Staffing Losses Mean Capacity Losses
A decline of 69 staffers across the House may sound small in isolation.
It is not small when spread across an institution made up of hundreds of individual Member offices with lean teams, constant constituent demand, and limited redundancy.
Most House offices do not have deep benches. Losing even one experienced staffer can affect legislative support, district outreach, communications, scheduling, casework, or office operations. That is why staffing declines should not be treated as abstract headcount changes. They affect the people and roles that keep congressional offices functioning.
The pressure can land differently across the office. A vacant Legislative Assistant position can weaken policy coverage. A missing Press Secretary or Communications Director can stretch public-facing capacity. A shortfall among Constituent Services Representatives and Caseworkers can slow district service. Gaps in Scheduler, Staff Assistant, or District Director capacity can affect everything from constituent intake to Member time management.
For readers who want to see how these positions fit together inside a Member office, HillClimbers’ Member Office Roles page maps the basic office structure across leadership, legislative, communications, administrative, district, and constituent-service teams.
HillClimbers has written separately about how institutional knowledge in Congress is increasingly held by staff. That matters here because staffing declines do not only reduce headcount. They can reduce continuity, experience, and operational resilience.
The pressure is also not evenly distributed. A staffing decline can look modest in the aggregate while hitting certain offices, teams, or roles much harder. HillClimbers has already shown that low-paying congressional offices experience the highest staff turnover, which suggests offices with weaker compensation capacity may be more vulnerable when budgets flatten.
Flat budgets do not reduce congressional workload. They reduce the room offices have to manage it.
The Staffing Pressure Reaches Every Office Function
Congressional staffing capacity is not one generic workforce pool. It is a set of connected functions.
A Chief of Staff may be responsible for overall office strategy, team management, and Member priorities. A Legislative Director coordinates policy work. A Senior Legislative Assistant or Legislative Correspondent/Aide helps manage legislative portfolios, constituent mail, or issue coverage. A Director of Operations or Executive Assistant/Office Manager supports the internal machinery of the office.
The district side matters just as much. A Deputy District Director, Field Representative, Director of Constituent Services/Casework, or Manager of Constituent Services/Casework can be central to how an office handles local relationships, casework, and constituent problem-solving.
When budgets are tight, offices may not eliminate an entire function. More often, they stretch it.
One vacant communications role can mean slower response times. One open district role can mean fewer local touchpoints. One missing legislative role can mean thinner issue coverage. One administrative vacancy can make every other function less efficient.
That is why a House-wide staffing decline matters even when the percentage looks small.
The Capacity Problem Also Shows Up in Careers and Hiring
Staffing pressure does not only affect offices. It affects people trying to build Capitol Hill careers.
When offices slow hiring or leave positions vacant longer, entry points become harder to find. That matters for staff assistants, interns, legislative correspondents, caseworkers, and other early-career roles that often form the pipeline into congressional careers. HillClimbers has previously analyzed how Congress has quietly replaced part of its entry-level workforce, and why freshman congressional offices may offer the best entry point into Capitol Hill careers.
For job seekers, a staffing squeeze can produce a frustrating contradiction. Offices may still have urgent work, but fewer funded openings. That is why HillClimbers tracks current openings on the congressional jobs board, including House, Senate, and Hill-adjacent roles.
For offices, the problem is equally practical. If budgets do not keep pace, offices may struggle to compete for experienced candidates at the exact moment they most need stable teams.
This Is Why the 2026 Decline Matters
The 119th Congress decline matters because it is happening after the pay reforms, not before them.
That is the difference between 2022 and 2026.
In early 2022, Congress was still moving toward a pay and staffing response. The system had not yet fully absorbed the MRA increase or the minimum salary floor. Offices were losing staff during a period of broad instability and before the institutional response had fully arrived.
In early 2026, the response has already happened. The House already made meaningful staff-pay investments. The salary floor already exists. The MRA increases already raised the baseline. Offices already adjusted to a higher-pay environment.
And yet staffing is falling again.
That suggests the question has changed.
The question is no longer simply whether Congress can raise staff pay. It is whether Congress can sustain staff capacity after raising it.
HillClimbers’ public data for All House Staff and All House Staff - No Interns shows why that distinction matters. Including interns can obscure what is happening to the permanent staff base. Excluding interns gives a sharper view of the workforce that carries the core operating load.
The Risk Is a Slow Capacity Erosion
The newest data does not prove that House offices are in crisis. It does not prove that every office is cutting staff. It does not show that the 119th Congress will continue declining at the same rate throughout the year.
But it does show an early warning signal.
The 119th Congress entered the second session with staffing levels below the 118th and then experienced a sharper-than-average Feb-to-March decline. That is happening while flat budgets are already showing up in salary pressure and while offices continue to carry heavy legislative, district, communications, administrative, and constituent-service workloads.
The risk is not a sudden collapse.
The risk is slow capacity erosion.
Vacancies stay open longer. Offices hesitate before adding staff. Raises become harder. Experienced staff leave for better-paying opportunities. Junior staff absorb more work. District and constituent-service teams stretch further. Offices become less resilient.
HillClimbers has previously shown that House office staffing levels have started shrinking again. The 2026 Q1 staffing data adds another piece to that picture.
The House may not be losing capacity all at once. It may be losing it incrementally.
That can be harder to see in real time and harder to fix later.
What the 117th Comparison Really Shows
The 117th comparison is useful because it shows what a severe early-year staffing decline looks like.
But it also clarifies why the 119th deserves attention.
The 117th Congress had a sharper decline, but it occurred during a unique labor and workplace crisis. The 119th Congress has a nearly comparable decline in a more ordinary institutional environment, after the major pay reforms were already implemented.
That makes the 119th decline arguably more troubling, not less.
The 117th was bad because offices were absorbing a shock.
The 119th is concerning because offices may be absorbing a structural squeeze.
For congressional workforce analytics, that distinction matters. It separates a temporary disruption from a capacity problem that could persist if budgets remain flat.
For staff, it means the workplace may be entering another period of pressure even after recent salary gains.
For Member offices, it means staffing strategy, retention, and workload management are becoming harder.
For Congress as an institution, it raises the same core question HillClimbers keeps returning to: whether the House is willing to invest enough in the workforce it depends on.
FAQ
Are House staffing levels declining in 2026?
Yes. In the second session of the 119th Congress, House staffing excluding interns fell from 6,848 on February 1 to 6,779 on March 31. That is a decline of 69 staff, or 1.01%. Some early-year decline is normal, but the 119th Congress decline is larger than the recent second-session average.
Is the 2026 House staffing decline worse than usual?
Yes. Across the second sessions of the 115th through 119th Congresses, House staffing declined by an average of 0.83% from February 1 to March 31. The 119th Congress declined 1.01%, making it worse than the five-Congress average and second only to the 117th Congress in this comparison.
Why did staffing fall so much in the 117th Congress?
The 117th Congress decline occurred in early 2022, during a very different workforce climate. House offices were coming off a historically high-turnover year, the pandemic and January 6 had strained the workplace, the broader labor market was experiencing the Great Resignation, and congressional staff were publicly organizing around pay and working conditions. The major pay and MRA reforms had not yet fully taken effect.
Why is the 119th Congress staffing decline different?
The 119th Congress decline is happening after the major post-2021 pay reforms. That makes it less likely to be a delayed version of the 2022 workforce shock and more likely to reflect a budget-capacity squeeze. Offices are operating with higher salary expectations and rising costs, but without the same pace of budget growth.
What does flat budget pressure mean for House offices?
Flat budget pressure means offices have less flexibility to raise salaries, fill vacancies, add positions, or retain experienced staff. Workloads do not automatically fall when budgets stay flat. Instead, offices may have to redistribute work, delay hiring, leave positions vacant longer, or rely more heavily on existing staff.
Which congressional staff roles are affected by staffing declines?
Staffing declines can affect every part of a Member office. Legislative roles, communications roles, administrative roles, district roles, and constituent-service roles all depend on enough staff capacity to function well. Readers can explore HillClimbers’ Member Office Roles page to see how those roles fit together.
Why does HillClimbers exclude interns from this staffing analysis?
Interns are an important part of the congressional workforce, but they are often seasonal, temporary, and compensated differently from permanent staff. Excluding interns gives a cleaner view of permanent House staff capacity across legislative, district, communications, administrative, and constituent-service work. HillClimbers separately tracks paid intern staffing and pay.
Suggested Reading
- Congressional Staffing Budget Pressure
- How Big Is a Congressional Office Team and Why It’s Shrinking Again
- The Average House Staff Salary Jumps Nearly $10,000 Without Interns
- Low-Paying Congressional Offices Experience the Highest Staff Turnover
- Institutional Knowledge in Congress Is Increasingly Held by Staff