Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What does censure mean?

Paul Gosar

Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona is the 24th House member to be censured.

Jonathan Ernst/Getty Images

For the first time in more than a decade, the House of Representatives censured one of its members Wednesday. While the rarely used action does not include expulsion, Rep. Paul Gosar faces other consequences that hamper his ability to participate in the legislative process.

The House voted 223-207 to censure the Arizona Republican after he shared an animated video on social media depicting him killing Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden. The vote was split largely along party lines, with only two Republicans — Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — joining Democrats in the affirmative. (One other Republican, David Joyce of Ohio, voted present.)

This week's censure is only the 24th time such a disciplinary action has been taken in the House. While the disciplinary action has been used sporadically in modern history, it was more popular in the 1800s when disputes over the Civil War would break out.


The implications of censure

To censure a member of Congress means to register deep disapproval with the member's misconduct. It's a more severe formal rebuke than reprimanding, but doesn't go as far as expelling the lawmaker from the House.

"[Censure] is the first level of punishment that carries actual consequences for the members beyond a public embarrassment or a public reprimation. Censure has teeth," said Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

When censured, members can lose their seniority and committee assignments, which significantly diminishes their power in Washington. In Gosar's case, the Arizona Republican was stripped of his two committee assignments: the Oversight and Reform Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. Gosar can still remain in his caucuses, cast floor votes and make procedural motions.

Another aspect of censure is public embarrassment. When the House speaker reads the resolution calling for the censure of a member, that lawmaker must stand in the well of the House — front and center in the chamber, facing their colleagues. During Wednesday's vote, some of Gosar's conservative colleagues stood behind him in the well.

"One cannot diminish the psychological impact of having to stand in the well and hearing the censure read to all your colleagues," Fitch said. "It's perhaps done for dramatic effect, but from a congressional perspective and from the history of the House and Senate perspective, it has weight, as well as the actual other punishment that comes."

The history of censure in Congress

The House first censured one of its members in 1832 when Rep. William Stanberry of Ohio insulted Speaker Andrew Stevenson of Virginia. But perhaps one of the most well-known and dramatic incidents that led to a censure took place two decades later.

In 1856, tensions in Congress over the expansions of slavery came to a boiling point when Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina brutally beat Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with a cane in the Senate chamber. The House failed to reach a two-thirds vote to expel Brooks for his actions, but lawmakers did vote to censure Rep. Laurence Keitt, who assisted in the assault on Sumner.

Before Gosar, the last House member to be censured was Democrat Charles Rangel of New York in 2010 over a string of ethics violations.

Although not a censure, the House did vote earlier this year to strip Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments for offensive social media posts she made before being elected to Congress.

The Senate has had only eight instances of censure, with the most recent rebuke occurring in 1990, when Republican David Durenberger of Minnesota was punished for campaign finance and ethics violations.

Read More

Department of Energy building in Washington, DC
J. David Ake/Getty Images

Project 2025: The Department of Energy

Radwell is the author of“American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

There are few better examples of recent generations’ malfeasance, indeed selfishness, than their failure to assume financial responsibilities. For most of my adult life, the federal government has run large deficits, but in recent decades those have ballooned to mind boggling heights — The New York Times reports that we will hit$56 trillion by 2034 given current trends.

Tolerating such as a normal way of doing business masks a simple and uncomfortable truth: We are passing the buck (and bill) to the next generations, who will be forced to pay for our profligacy. (Some call this borrowing from future generations, but I think the term “robbing” is more apropos.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors call for health care beneifts

People demonstrate in support of health care in 2017 in Montana, which expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

William Campbell-Corbis via Getty Images

Has Medicaid expansion in states improved health outcomes?

This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Has Medicaid expansion in states improved health outcomes?

Yes.

Studies have shown that Medicaid expansion in states does lead to improved health outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
People at a press conference. One has a sign that reads "Contraception is health care."

Supporters hold signs as Sen. Tammy Duckworth speaks during a news conference on the Right to Contraception Act in D.C. on June 5.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Do about 90 percent of Americans support access to contraception?

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Do about 90 percent of Americans support access to contraception?

Yes.

Some 91 percent of registered voters said in a national poll released June 11, 2024, that birth control should be legal (73 percent said they feel strongly, 18 percent said somewhat strongly).

Keep ReadingShow less
Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Richard Blumenthal

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, worked together to draft the Kids Online Safety Act.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Congress worked across the aisle on a bill to protect kids online. Now pass it.

Hatch is board chair at Issue One, a cross-partisan political reform organization.

Fifty years ago, my father served as the Republican minority leader in the deep-blue Massachusetts House of Representatives. But during his time in office, he managed to create jobs, protect reproductive rights and author a landmark environmental bill that protects Massachusetts wetlands to this day. (Did I mention he was Republican?)

That solutions-minded approach was my introduction to politics. Legislators prioritized governing: They looked out for problems, listened to constituents and worked together to write effective policies, even on contentious issues — and often with a good dose of humor.

Keep ReadingShow less
People walking in a line

Migrants walk on a road as they wait to be processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in San Diego on June 13.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Immigration could get Trump elected again. Here's how Democrats keep getting it wrong.

Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

For more than 20 years, I have held one position constant when it comes to immigration policy: We should have one.

I am less concerned about the number of immigrants we take in every year than I am about the fact that we — voters, policymakers, politicians, what have you — don't pick a number.

I'd be fine with 1 million or 2 million immigrants a year. I'd also be fine with a temporary freeze on most immigration. I think preferences for skilled immigrants are entirely defensible. I also think a generous asylum policy is morally preferable to a narrow one.

But for me, the priority isn't the number or kind of immigrants we take in; it's making a decision about the number and kind and sticking to it.

Keep ReadingShow less