Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion
We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

One of the most dangerous mistakes Americans are making right now is treating the threat to our democracy as a collection of daily outrages — the latest social media post, the latest threat, the latest norm broken. Those things are certainly bad, often stunningly so. But they are not the real problem. The real problem is structural, and it runs much deeper.

At his most charitable interpretation, Donald Trump does not think like an elected official operating inside a constitutional democracy. He thinks like a businessman. In that mindset, success is measured by dominance, efficiency, and loyalty. What produces results is kept; what resists is discarded. Rules are obstacles. Norms are optional. Institutions exist to serve the leader, not to restrain him. At present, this governing style is all about energizing perceived positives and minimizing perceived negatives. Increasingly, those “negatives” are people: immigrants, minorities, trans Americans, and the poor. The danger here is not just institutional; it is human. When checks and balances weaken, there are fewer brakes on policies that treat entire groups as costs to be managed rather than citizens to be protected.

Keep ReadingShow less
Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

An ICE agent holds a taser as they stand watch after one of their vehicles got a flat tire on Penn Avenue on February 5, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

Donald Trump ran on a simple promise: focus immigration enforcement on criminals and make the country safer. The policy now being implemented tells a different story. With tens of billions of dollars directed toward arrests, detention, and removals, the enforcement system has been structured to maximize volume rather than reduce risk. That design choice matters because it shapes who is targeted, how force is used, and whether public safety is actually improved.

This is not a dispute over whether immigration law should be enforced. The question is whether the policy now in place matches what was promised and delivers the safety outcomes that justified its scale and cost.

Keep ReadingShow less
NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less