Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats Seek A 'Reform' Label With Their House Rules

After electing a speaker from its own ranks, changing the House rules offers the second opportunity for a new congressional majority to put its own muscular stamp on the way the Capitol operates. And so it will be Thursday, when the Democrats embrace a revised rulebook chockablock with changes designed to show the public they're keenly interested in projecting a "good government" sensibility.

Adopting the new House rules, almost surely on a party-line vote with a few progressive Democrats dissenting, will be the second important roll call of the 116th Congress' opening day – soon after the formal installation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"We are proposing historic changes that will modernize Congress, restore regular order and bring integrity back to this institution," said the incoming Democratic chairman of the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Here are some of items that advocates for congressional "reform" like best:


Devolved Power

  • Legislation that has garnered more than 290 co-sponsorships – enough support, in theory, to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto – will effectively be guaranteed a vote by the full House within 25 congressional work days. The idea of this new "consensus calendar" is to prevent the leadership from sitting on bills that have overwhelming bipartisan backing.
  • An existing process for forcing debate on legislation leaders have kept bottled up in committee, known as the discharge petition, will become available to members essentially all the time instead of just two Mondays a month.
  • Votes of no confidence in the House speaker will be held only if demanded by a majority of one of the party caucuses. In the past such a "motion to vacate the chair" could be made by a single disgruntled member, a power that gave a combative subset of the GOP (the conservative Freedom Caucus) leverage over the previous two Republican speakers.
  • The text of major legislation will be publicly available for at least 72 hours before a vote on the measure is called. This is designed to deny the majority leadership the power to call snap votes on measures before their contentious nature is widely understood.

Tighter Budgeting

  • A pay-as-you-go budget provision, favored by deficit hawks but ardently opposed by progressives, will be reinstituted. Also known as "paygo," it requires that any legislation that would increase spending on mandatory programs – Medicare, farm subsidies or food stamps, for example – include language raising an equivalent amount of new revenue or dictating offsetting cuts to other so-called entitlements.
  • At the same time, legislation to raise taxes will be permitted to pass with simple majority support, instead of the three-fifths threshold instituted by the anti-tax GOP majority during the past eight years.
  • The legal limit on the size of the national debt will be increased automatically upon the adoption of an annual congressional budget resolution. The aim here is to eliminate the sort of political brinkmanship that accompanies debate on legislation to raise the debt limit in order to forestall a government default.

Stiffer Ethics Rules

  • Members will be required to attend a training session on government ethics every year and to establish anti-discrimination policies for their own offices.
  • They will be required to use personal funds to pay settlements of any sort of harassment or discrimination claim by their aides.
  • They will be pressured, but not quite required, to resign committee or leadership positions while under indictment for a felony.
  • Members and House aides will be prohibited from serving on corporate boards starting in 2020.
  • Discrimination based on sexual identity or gender identity will be explicitly prohibited in the House for the first time.
  • The ban on sexual relationships between members and their aides will be expanded to prohibit relations between a member and any staffer on any committee where the member serves.
  • Two new offices will be created, one to promote a more diverse and inclusive workforce on Capitol Hill and the other to make it easier for whistleblowers to report their concerns.

Other Matters

  • A Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress will be created, with six members from each party and some freshman membership guaranteed, to recommend more changes that would create a more modern and efficient House of Representatives, with an emphasis on improving technology and personnel retention. The panel will also examine how to regulate members' correspondence to constituents in the digital age.
  • The delegates from Washington, D.C., and five other U.S. places outside the 50 states (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianna islands) will be able to vote on legislative amendments on the House floor, but only if their ballots are not dispositive. They still won't be able to vote on passing or defeating the finalized bill.
  • The two-century-old prohibition on hats on the House floor will be altered to permit religious headwear – an accommodation for one of the first Muslim women in the House, freshman Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who wears a headscarf.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less