Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Political divisions over Jan. 6 commission fuel dysfunction

Capitol insurrection

Congress is divided over whether to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

The same polarizing politics that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol may also prevent Congress from investigating the attack.

Ahead of the House's vote Wednesday to create an investigative commission, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California voiced his opposition to the bill. But several of his fellow Republicans have broken from the leadership's stance, signaling they would support an independent probe into the unprecedented attempt to subvert American democracy.

The GOP's splintering over the Jan. 6 commission underscores divisions within the party, between those who remain loyal to Donald Trump and those who want the GOP to go in a different direction. And lack of significant support from Republicans on such a critical issue will only perpetuate the dysfunctions within the country's political system.


Co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and GOP Rep. John Katko of New York, the commission would consist of 10 members, evenly appointed by the two parties' leadership in the House and Senate. Modeled after the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this body would have the power to receive evidence and issue subpoenas.

The commission would be required to hold public hearings and submit a final report to Congress and President Biden by the end of the year.

Even after Democrats conceded to McCarthy on a number of points aimed at making the commission more bipartisan and independent, the minority leader formally announced his opposition Tuesday. McCarthy said the scope of the investigation should be broadened to include violent incidents that occurred across the country as a result of racial justice protests.

"Given the political misdirections that have marred this process, given the now duplicative and potentially counterproductive nature of this effort, and given the Speaker's shortsighted scope that does not examine interrelated forms of political violence in America, I cannot support this legislation," McCarthy said in a statement.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi originally proposed Biden would have a say in the committee appointments, but that was rolled back during negotiations. Party leaders also agreed that the Democrat-appointed chair and the Republican-appointed vice chair would need to agree on which witnesses to subpoena. They also agreed to ban current elected officials from serving on the commission in an effort to make the investigation more independent.

While the Jan. 6 commission bill doesn't need Republican votes to pass in the Democrat-majority House, receiving GOP support in that chamber could make it easier for the legislation to obtain the 60 votes needed to pass in the evenly split Senate.

However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell piled onto the GOP opposition Wednesday by announcing he would vote against creating a Jan. 6 commission — a blow to the bill's chances in the Senate.

Failing to receive support from both major parties would be a noteworthy departure from historical precedent. In the cases of Watergate and 9/11, Congress overwhelmingly supported establishing investigative committees.

During a press call Wednesday, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, urged Congress to approve the commission and investigate the Jan. 6 attack. They said "unity of purpose" was key to their commission's effectiveness.

"We put country above party to examine, without bias, the events before, during, and after the attacks," Kean and Hamilton said. "The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol was one of the darkest days in our history. Americans deserve an objective and accurate account of what happened. As we did in the wake of September 11, it is time to set aside partisan politics and come together as Americans in common pursuit of truth and justice."

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