This article examines why legislators reverse their positions on foreign policy bills they initially endorse. Using roll-call data from the U.S. House of Representatives (1990–2024), we identify systematic variations in waffling patterns across foreign policy domains. Our analysis shows that majority party members are generally less likely to waffle than their minority party counterparts, especially in defense/security and international affairs, though the pattern is less pronounced in trade policy. We also find that ideological extremity substantially increases the likelihood of waffling, particularly among senior legislators. Moreover, we distinguish between waffling and strategic waffling, revealing a distinct pattern in trade policy, where majority party members are more inclined to be absent strategically. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that legislative position-taking on foreign policy is shaped by the interplay of party pressure, ideological commitments, and political experience in the post–Cold War era.
AdlerE. S.LapinskiJ. S. (1997). Demand-side theory and congressional committee composition: A constituency characteristics approach. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 895–918. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111679
2.
BendixW.JeongG. H. (2024). Beyond party: Ideological convictions and foreign policy conflicts in the US congress. In Polarization and US foreign policy: When politics crosses the water’s edge (pp. 95–124): Springer.
3.
BerganD. E. (2009). Does grassroots lobbying work? A field experiment measuring the effects of an e-mail lobbying campaign on legislative behavior. American Politics Research, 37(2), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08326967
4.
BerganD. E.ColeR. T. (2015). Call your legislator: A field experimental study of the impact of a constituency mobilization campaign on legislative voting. Political Behavior, 37(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9277-1
5.
BernhardW.SulkinT. (2013). Commitment and consequences: Reneging on cosponsorship pledges in the U.S. house. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12024
BrownA. R.GoodliffeJ. (2017). Why do legislators skip votes? Position taking versus policy influence. Political Behavior, 39(2), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9362-8
8.
Cable-Satellite. (n.d.). Public affairs network (C-SPAN). Retrieved from. https://www.c-span.org/
9.
CampbellJ. E. (1982). Cosponsoring legislation in the U.S. congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(3), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/439366
10.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. house of representatives. Cambridge University Press.
11.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2007). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
12.
CurryJ. M. (2019). Knowledge, expertise, and committee power in the contemporary congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 203–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12219
13.
FisherL. (2000). Congressional abdication on war and spending. Texas A&M University Press.
14.
GilliganT. W.KrehbielK. (1990). Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111460
15.
HallR. L. (1996). Participation in congress: Yale University Press.
16.
HallR. L.GrofmanB. (1990). The committee assignment process and the conditional nature of committee bias. American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1149–1166. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963257
17.
HarbridgeL. (2015). Is bipartisanship dead? Policy agreement and agenda-setting in the house of representatives. Cambridge University Press.
18.
HibbingJ. R. (1991). Congressional careers: Contours of life in the U.S. house of representatives. University of North Carolina Press.
19.
HowellW. G. (2003). Power without persuasion: The politics of direct presidential action. Princeton University Press.
KangS.ParkJ. (2025). Why do legislators engage in waffling? Evidence from the Korean ational assembly, 2004–2020. Journal of East Asian Studies, 25(3), 368–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2025.10013
24.
KangS. J.ParkJ. Y. (2022). Does the characteristics of the bill influence legislators’ waffling decisions? Focusing on conflict bills in the 20th national assembly. Journal of Parliamentary Research, 17(2), 5–27.
25.
KangS. J.ParkJ. Y.KaS. (2022). Analyses of waffling behavior of Korean national assembly members: Focusing on conflict bills in the 20th national assembly. Korean Political Science Review, 56(1), 261–287. https://doi.org/10.18854/kpsr.2022.56.1.009
26.
KirklandJ. H.HardenJ. J. (2016). Representation, competing principals, and waffling on bills in US legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(3), 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12132
KrehbielK. (1992). Information and legislative organization. University of Michigan Press.
29.
KrehbielK. (1995). Cosponsors and wafflers from A to Z. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 906–923. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111662
30.
LongleyN. (2003). Modeling the legislator as an agent for the party: The effects of strict party discipline on legislator voting behavior. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(4), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byg027
31.
ManleyJ. F. (1965). The house committee on ways and means: Conflict management in acongressional committee. American Political Science Review, 59(4), 927–939. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953214
32.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931
33.
MillerS. M.OverbyL. M. (2010). Parties, preferences, and petitions: Discharge behavior in the modern house. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298010791170141
34.
MillerS. M.OverbyL. M. (2012). Discharge petitions and the conditional nature of agenda control in the US house of representatives. Party Politics, 20(3), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436058
35.
MilnerH. V.TingleyD. H. (2010). The political economy of US foreign aid: American legislators and the domestic politics of aid. Economics & Politics, 22(2), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2009.00356.x
MühlböckM.YordanovaN. (2017). When legislators choose not to decide: Abstentions in the european parliament. European Union Politics, 18(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116517694369
38.
ParkerG. R.ParkerS. L.CopaJ. C.LawhornM. D. (2004). The question of committee bias revisited. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700308
39.
RaunioT.WagnerW. M. (2017). Ideology or national interest? External relations votes in the european parliament. External relations votes in the european parliament (june 19, 2017). The Amsterdam Centre for Contemporary European Studies Research Paper, 2017.
40.
RoccaM. S.SanchezG. R. (2008). The effect of race and ethnicity on bill sponsorship and cosponsorship in congress. American Politics Research, 36(1), 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X0730635
41.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform houseUniversity of Chicago Press.
42.
RothenbergL. S.SandersM. S. (2000). Legislator turnout and the calculus of voting: The determinants of abstention in the US congress. Public Choice, 103(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005073328944
43.
SchillerW. J. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shapelegislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111763
44.
ShepsleK. A. (1978). The giant jigsaw puzzle: Democratic committee assignments in the modern house: University of Chicago Press.
45.
SpitzerR. J. (1993). President and congress: Executive hegemony at the crossroads of American government: Temple University Press.
46.
WeingastB. R.MarshallW. J. (1988). The industrial organization of congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy, 96(1), 132–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/261528
