Lawmakers are again discussing whether to increase congressional pay amid complaints from some members about the cost of maintaining two households and the demands of the job, but any formal move faces steep political and public resistance.
Members of the House and Senate currently receive an annual salary of $174,000, a level critics note is roughly 2.8 times the median U.S. worker’s annual pay of just over $62,000, according to a July report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Supporters of a raise cite the costs of keeping a residence in a home district and in Washington, frequent travel, and pay that lags behind certain federal positions such as U.S. district judges, who make more than $243,000 a year.
Lawmakers said they remain wary of the political optics of voting to increase their own pay. Speaker Mike Johnson last year advocated including a cost-of-living adjustment in a stopgap funding measure, but that provision was removed from the bill amid public backlash. Critics amplified by social media assertions — including posts by Elon Musk that inaccurately characterized the proposal as a 40% raise — helped sharpen opposition and led lawmakers to strip the pay provision to avoid further controversy.
A range of proposals has surfaced in interviews and public comments. Some members said they would support a modest pay adjustment if it were paired with new ethics restrictions, including bans on trading individual stocks. "I do think we need to look at it," Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., told the Daily Mail, but added that "it just doesn't look good for representatives to raise their income." Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the youngest member of Congress, said the current salary makes it difficult for people without independent means to serve and expressed openness to coupling a raise with a stock-trading ban. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said she lives out of her Capitol Hill office because she cannot afford a D.C. residence on her salary and would prefer higher per diem travel allowances to an outright pay increase.
Congressional pay is subject to an automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustment under a 1989 law, but members routinely vote to block those increases to avoid political backlash. A class-action lawsuit filed last year by Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., and other former members challenges the continued blocking of the COLA and seeks back pay for roughly 1,800 current and former lawmakers; that suit remains pending.
Under the most recent effort, House leaders had sought a roughly 3.8% adjustment — about a $6,600 increase — as part of December funding negotiations. The provision never reached the floor after critics accused lawmakers of attempting to raise their pay while dealing with a looming government funding deadline, and it was removed from the package.
Staff salaries have risen in recent years, adding another layer to the debate. Legislation passed during the speakership of Nancy Pelosi made it more common for chiefs of staff and senior aides to earn significantly more than rank-and-file members, with the maximum chief-of-staff salary exceeding $212,000. Some lawmakers have expressed discomfort with staffers’ pay surpassing member pay.
The pause on automatic COLAs and the narrow public tolerance for pay increases have pushed some members toward higher-paying private-sector jobs after leaving office. Former Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., took a job with software firm Palantir, and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., joined a major law firm to work on government affairs. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than 460 former members were employed by lobbying firms as of 2023.
Although several lawmakers acknowledge the issue, there is little appetite in the current Congress for an overt pay-raise measure. No bills proposing an across-the-board increase have been introduced this session, and lawmakers said any member who sponsors a proposal would likely face immediate scrutiny for ostensibly voting to line their own pockets. For now, the combination of public skepticism, the memory of last year’s backlash, and the political sensitivity of the issue make meaningful congressional pay changes unlikely in the near term.