Congress was close to passing a pay bump for themselves late last year until Elon Musk tanked the proposal, and now, months later, with Musk gone from government, some lawmakers are looking to revive the controversial boost.

One of the few bipartisan issues on Capitol Hill is the need for a salary adjustment for members of Congress. They earn $174,000 annually, a rate that was set in 2009 after the institution passed a 2.8 percent raise to boost their income by $4,700.

Meanwhile, the median annual salary for an American worker shakes out to just over $62,000, according to a July report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In essence, members of Congress make 2.8 times the median national average.

That makes any real movement toward a pay raise as risky as endorsing a tax hike.  

Members argue that maintaining two homes, one in their district and another in the capital, the additional travel required by the job and the comparatively low salary compared to other federal jobs – U.S. district judges make over $243,000 annually – are all good reasons for a pay bump.

But they know better, understanding that voting on increasing members’ pay is politically tenuous, no member of Congress expects to see an adjustment any time soon – regardless of how much they want it.

‘I do think we need to look at it,’ freshman Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., told the Daily Mail. ‘[But] it just doesn’t look good for representatives to raise their income.’ 

‘When you think about the overall implication of the salary, you’ve got to maintain a house in your district, you’ve got to maintain a place up here, and you’ve got to manage the travel back and forth. It’s a lot to do on $174,000,’ he continued. 

Harrigan, a former businessman with past ventures in manufacturing firearms, said he took a significant salary cut to serve in Congress, and suggested a ‘reasonable’ solution would be to pair a pay increase for members with a law banning them from trading stocks.

Democrats also are itching for a raise, and similarly understand the political fallout that could ensue. 

‘I know that cost-of-living increase isn’t that popular across the country,’ Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the youngest member of Congress, told the Daily Mail. 

The congressional pay makes it ‘hard for working people to be able to do this stuff,’ Frost said. 

Though the combination of a stock ban and a salary increase intrigued him. ‘I think people would be okay with that, yeah,’ he shared. 

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., chooses to live out of her Capitol Hill office because she cannot afford a residence in D.C. on her annual salary, she told the Daily Mail. 

‘I think that having a better scenario for travel per diem makes a lot more sense than a pay increase because I can’t afford to live off campus right now,’ the Republican shared. 

She’s not alone either; dozens of members have shared that they opt to sleep on cots in their offices rather than pay for lodging in the capital.   

Congress is supposed to get an automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustment under a 1989 law, but members consistently vote on provisions to block the annual raise out of fear of criticism from their constituents.

Capitol Hill staffers have been luckier.

Under former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., aides received significant salary bumps. 

Legislation passed under the Democrat has made it commonplace for lawmakers’ chiefs of staff to make significantly more money than the members themselves.

The maximum salary for chiefs is just over $212,000, an income 18 percent higher than that of the typical member.

‘I think it is an issue,’ Frost said of staffers making more than the member they work for. 

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., entered into a class action lawsuit along with other former members against the U.S. government last year for the continual pause on the annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).

The suit, which is still pending, would provide backpay to roughly 1,800 current and former members if it is successful.  

There was a push for members to receive a 3.8 percent salary adjustment in December as a part of a stopgap government funding bill.

What would’ve amounted to nearly a $6,600 raise ended up being scrubbed from the bill, however, after Trump’s then-buddy Musk began posting to his hundreds of millions of followers how Congress wanted to give themselves a 40 percent salary adjustment – a fictional number never considered.

The provision for the increase was stripped after pressure mounted from critics slamming the lawmakers for considering a raise while a government funding deadline loomed.

This Congress, there has been no word of a pay bump for members, and many are reluctant to talk about salaries. 

It appears unlikely that any provisions to increase pay will hit the floor this year, as none have been introduced. It’s likely because whichever member drafts a bill to give themselves a raise will immediately draw scrutiny for attempting to line their own pockets.

Instead, for better or for worse, many former members opt to wait it out and join high-paying roles in the private sector after leaving Capitol Hill. 

Ex-Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., now has a cushy job at AI firm Palantir, a company that boasts major contracts with the Departments of War and Homeland Security. 

Former Sen. Krysten Sinema, I-Ariz., recently joined the law firm Hogan Lovells to help with the organization’s government affairs. 

As of 2023, there were over 460 former members of Congress employed by lobbying firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.