Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Younger House members a bit more bipartisan, research decides

partisan balance
MHJ/Getty Images

Younger House members are more likely to work across the aisle than their older colleagues, a new study shows.

Bipartisanship is extraordinarily hard to come by on Capitol Hill, one of the main reasons why the legislative branch has devolved into near-total dysfunction and further hobbled the regular operations of democracy. The report provides a glimmer of hope the next generation of lawmaker leaders may be willing to change that.


The findings were released this week by the Millennial Action Project, which was created to champion young legislators committed to bipartisanship, and the Lugar Center, a think tank promoting civility and collaboration across party lines.

For the study, researchers created a formula to quantify the bipartisan tendencies of every current House member. It was based on how often in this term they have signed on to bills introduced by someone of the opposite party, and how many of their own proposals have attracted sponsorship from across the aisle. (The numbers are one of the few ways to quantify behavior that often manifests itself in subjective acts of behind-closed-doors cooperation.)

The results were compared to how members of Congress behaved from 1993 to 2018, a period when partisan loyalties soared while collaborative legislating fell into disfavor and disuse each year more than the last. High scores identified members acting in a more bipartisan way than the average of the previous quarter-century.

One in six House members, 75 of them, were identified as young because at the start of this Congress they had not yet turned 45. But they accounted for 22 percent of the members who scored above zero for bipartisanship. (That group of 185 members represents 43 percent of the House.)

"This correlation is all the more impressive in that it has held true for three Congresses in a row and both younger Republicans and younger Democrats are scoring above the historical average," said Dan Diller of the Lugar Center.

Overall, 56 percent of younger members were in positive territory for being more bipartisan than the recent historical average — but that was true of only 40 percent of their older colleagues.

Steven Olikara, who runs the Millennial Action Project, said this study affirms that "the next generation of leaders is already redefining how we govern."

Younger members with the highest bipartisanship scores:

  • 1. Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey
  • 2. Republican Lee Zeldin of New York
  • 3. Republican Elise Stefanik of New York
  • 4. Democrat Joe Cunningham of South Carolina
  • 5. Democrat Abigail Spanberger of Virginia

Younger members with the lowest bipartisanship scores:

  • 73. Democrat Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
  • 72. Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
  • 71. Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
  • 70. Republican Michael Cloud of Texas
  • 69. Democrat Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

Older members with the highest bipartisanship scores:

  • 1. Republican Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
  • 2. Republican John Katko of New York
  • 3. Republican Peter King of New York
  • 4. Republican Don Young of Alaska
  • 5. Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey

Older members with the lowest bipartisanship scores:

  • 360. Republican Gary Palmer of Alabama
  • 359. Republican Rick Allen of Georgia
  • 358. Republican Chip Roy of Texas
  • 357. Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio
  • 356. Republican Tom McClintock of California

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less