Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Partisanship likely to derail insurrection commission

Capitol insurrection

The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on whether to create a commission investigating the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol.

Brent Stirton/Getty Images

Nearly five months ago, insurrectionists stormed the Capitol, threatened the lives of lawmakers and attempted to subvert American democracy. But GOP opposition is likely to stonewall an investigation into this attack.

Failure to approve a commission investigating the events of Jan. 6 would signal significant dysfunction and polarization in Congress, further eroding the public's faith in the political system.


Following the House's bipartisan vote to approve an investigation commission last week, the Senate is anticipated to bring the legislation to the chamber floor Thursday. But ahead of the vote, many Republicans remained opposed or undecided, casting uncertainty on the prospects of meeting the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a procedural test.

Co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and GOP Rep. John Katko of New York, the bill would establish a commission consisting 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.

Despite opposition from GOP House leaders including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 35 Republicans joined Democrats in approving the commission last Wednesday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also come out against the probe, putting pressure on Republicans to fall in line with party leadership.

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

Ambassador Tim Roemer, a Democrat and former member of Congress who served on the Sept. 11 commission, emphasized during a press call Thursday morning that the creation of a Jan. 6 commission should not be a partisan issue.

"This is not about left or right. It's about right and wrong. It was wrong for people to violently attack and assault our police officers, our legislators and custodians and staff, to disrupt a peaceful transfer of power, plain wrong," Roemer said during the call, which was organized by the nonpartisan reform group Issue One. "It's not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about the constitution and our Capitol, and the sanctity of that Capitol."

Republican Chuck Hagel, a former senator and secretary of defense during President Barack Obama's first term, also participated in the call and echoed Roemer's remarks. Hagel said all senators should vote according to their oath of office, not political party or whomever the president is at the time.

"In representative government, if you stay close to your oath of office and don't get things confused, that's your North Star," he said. "It's not a Republican or Democratic vote, it's an American vote."

If the Jan. 6 commission does receive enough votes to pass, it could be thanks to a last-minute amendment pushed by Sen. Susan Collins. The Maine Republican's primary sticking point is making sure the chair and vice chair of the commission jointly appoint the staff, rather than do so separately. If the bill is approved with Collins' amendment, it would be sent back to the House for reconciliation.

But the more likely scenario is that the vote will be subject to the first Republican filibuster of this legislative session. Utilizing the procedural move, which was conceived as a way to ensure the majority doesn't run roughshod over the minority, would give progressive Democrats fodder to reignite their efforts to eliminate what has become merely a blocking tactic rather than a tool for forcing compromise.

Notably, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the two Democrats largely responsible for the filibuster remaining intact, issued a joint statement Tuesday in support of the Jan. 6 commission. They called it "a critical step to ensuring our nation never has to endure an attack at the hands of our countrymen again."

"We implore our Senate Republican colleagues to work with us to find a path forward on a commission to examine the events of January 6th," Sinema and Manchin said.

Whatever the Senate decides Thursday, Hagel said, "history is going to reflect on this day pretty clearly." Not having Congress involved in investigating the insurrection would be "a terrible blackmark" on the institution, he added.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less