Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

People of color fill less than 20 percent of senior staff positions in House

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries is one of just three leaders to employ a person of color in a top staff position.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

While people of color make up a larger share of senior staff positions in the House of Representatives than they did four years ago, the top ranks remain far away from the national demographics.

The latest census data shows people of color make up 40 percent of the U.S. population but, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, they comprise just 18 percent of senior House positions. Only 23 of 308 personal offices of white lawmakers have a chief of staff who is also a person of color.


The ranks of senior staffers have become more diverse – up from 13.7 percent when the first edition of the report was published four years ago.

“While Congress has made significant progress since 2018, members of Congress and their leadership must do more to ensure that the diversity of the U.S. House workforce reflects the diversity of the American people,” writes LaShonda Brenson, senior researcher at the Joint Center and author of the report.

The study tallied the number top staffers in three levels of House offices:

  • Chiefs of staff, legislative directors and communications directors in lawmakers’ personal offices as
  • Chiefs of staff, policy directors and communications directors in leadership offices.
  • Staff directors for full committees.

Staff diversity in House offices chart

"While we currently have one of the most diverse Congresses in history, their staff still falls short of reflecting the multiplicity of communities that make up the United States. By increasing the diversity of top Hill staff, especially in senior-level positions, Congress is able to make smarter policies, communicate more effectively, and ensure that everyone's needs are met,” said Kayla Primes, president of the Congressional Black Associates, a bipartisan organization of Black staffers on Capitol Hill. “We acknowledge that 18 percent is an improvement from 13.7 percent, but there is still a long way to go to account for the 40 percent of BIPOC Americans in the U.S. today."

Democrats hired a significantly higher share of people of color for senior positions, accounting for 82 percent, according to the research, and at a higher rate among all the racial groups studied. Republicans’ biggest share is among Native American staffers, but that’s only one of a total of three aides. They also have 26.8 percent of the Lantino staffers in senior positions. Just 5.1 percent of staffers in the offices of white Republicans are people of color.

But even within the Democratic side of the aisle there are differences, with 40 percent of top positions unders members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus filled by people of color. That’s compared to 23.6 percent under members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition.

Lawmakers of color account for the largest share of senior staffers who are racial minorities. For example, members of the Congressional Black Caucus are responsible for hiring 75 percent of the senior Black staffers across all three office types.

While Asian American/Pacific Islander, biracial, Middle Eastern/North African and Native American staffers do hold senior positions in lawmakers personal offices, none of them serve in a top post in a leadership office or as a committee staff director.

The report also examined which personal offices represent districts that are at least one-third minorities but do not have people of color in senior roles. It found 239 districts that meet the population requirement, and of those nearly half (48.1 percent) do not have a person of color in any of the top positions.

“The lack of top staff diversity is a structural challenge for the entire institution rather than a problem attributable to a single member or political party,” according to Brensen. “The lack of racial diversity impairs House members’ ability to understand their constituencies’ diverse perspectives.”

The study identified 20 senior positions in House leadership (the offices of the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips, and the caucus chairs). Of those 20 people, two are Black and one is Latino. The remaining 17 are white. The only leaders with a person of color in a top spot are:

  • Majority Whip Jim Clyburn
  • Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries
  • Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy

Primes noted that her organization is trying to help Congress become more diverse.

“CBA recently re-launched our resume bank as a resource for Members and staff to find that diverse talent because they are here and ready to be of service,” she said.

The Select Committee on Modernization of the Congress, a bipartisan panel that has spent the past four years developing proposals to make the House more effective and transparent, has made suggestions for improving staff diversity.

One such proposal that was implemented turned the Office of Diversity and Inclusion into a permanent element of the House structure. Another directs the ODI and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct a compensation and diversity study every two years.

Read More

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less