Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Americans have no faith in government’s interest in its citizens

Americans are dissatisfied with government mainly because they view it as unresponsive to the needs of average citizens, not because they're turned off by the partisanship or depressed by the dysfunction, a two-year-long survey has found.

An astonishing 89 percent of respondents said they view the government as being run by a few big interests looking out for themselves instead of "for the benefit of all the people" – a record high compared with similar surveys since the Great Society. (The figure was at 64 percent just a decade ago.)

In addition, 89 percent of voters also described Congress as being run mainly with lawmakers' own political well-being in mind and "not about what is good for the country," while 90 percent agreed with the view that elected officials are more interested in appealing to their campaign donors than addressing "the common good of the people."

Finally, an overwhelming 88 percent say Congress would be more likely to find common ground if the public's views had more sway on senators and House members.


The surveys of 16,525 registered voters was conducted between December 2016 and the week before last November's election, using five different time periods for phone calls and mailings. It was run by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland in collaboration with two nonpartisan organizations, Voice of the People and Common Ground Solutions, and released last week.

"In both 2016 and 2018 outsider candidates like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez were buoyed by their claim that they would listen to the people over special interests and their parties," said the director of the poll, Steven Kull. "Voters may well be looking for candidates with that message in the 2020 election as well."

The two advocacy groups took part in the survey in part to promote their favorite idea for bolstering democracy – encouraging more lawmakers to form what they have dubbed "Citizen Cabinets," representative samples of their constituents whom they consult routinely for input on legislative priorities and policy positioning.

Nine in 10 respondents reacted favorably to this concept. And 78 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats signaled they would consider voting for a candidate of the other party who would commit to formalizing such an advisory board, which the advocacy groups envision would receive regular briefings and hear debates on policy proposals before making their recommendations.

A report accompanying the poll detailed results of a pilot project, engineered by the University of Maryland, that tested the Citizen Cabinet concept in nine states during the past two campaign seasons. Bipartisan majorities agreed on proposals for reshaping immigration, budget, Social Security, Medicare, poverty, energy, environment and criminal justice policies.

Read More

Texas Redistricting Showdown: Why the Fight Over Five GOP Seats Reveals a Broken System

A person views a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, Texas

Getty Images, Brandon Bell

Texas Redistricting Showdown: Why the Fight Over Five GOP Seats Reveals a Broken System

The fight over congressional redistricting in Texas continues to simmer. Democratic state representatives fled the state to block the passage of a rare mid-decade, Republican-drawn map that would give the GOP an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives if put into effect before the midterms. In response, Governor Greg Abbott threatened to remove the absent members from their seats and arrest them.

The Texas Democrats responded with “come and take it,” an overt reference to a slogan from the Texas Revolution. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who welcomed the fleeing Texas legislators to his state, called Abbott a “joke.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s To Blame: Epstein Files Scandal Reveals Racism and Classism in U.S. Anti-Trafficking Discourse

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, telling him that his name appeared in the files.

Getty Images, Adam Gray

Who’s To Blame: Epstein Files Scandal Reveals Racism and Classism in U.S. Anti-Trafficking Discourse

The past several weeks have produced a 24/7 churn of speculation surrounding the lack of transparency from the White House on President Donald Trump’s relationship to the late convicted pedophile and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The scandal dominating the news cycle and social media appears for the first time to have driven a wedge between members of the MAGA community and elected Republicans.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

Seasonally adjusted data. Graph excludes March to August 2020, initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the reported jobs numbers were especially volatile. Shows difference between the preliminary estimate and the final revision for each month. Includes initial revision for June 2025 (BLS often issues a second revision).

How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

On Friday, President Trump announced that he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Earlier that day the BLS had issued its monthly national jobs report, which showed lackluster growth in employment, and a slight uptick in the unemployment rate.

The report showed a relatively small increase in employment for July: +73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs. The BLS also included revisions to the preliminary jobs numbers reported earlier, stating: “Revisions for May and June were larger than normal. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000.”

Keep ReadingShow less