One maxim of democracy reformers is that governments will become more productive and confidence-inducing when they start looking more like the communities they represent.
To that end, nine groups with particular interest in Congress have collaborated on a nuts-and-bolts guide for lawmakers to create and sustain more diverse and inclusive teams of aides.
The booklet began circulating this week, an opportune time for altering a congressional workforce that is not keeping pace with American demographic shifts. Sixty freshly elected House members and seven newly minted senators are making their first hires, while dozens of returning lawmakers are confronting staff churn that has accelerated in the past decade — thanks to the high stress but low productivity of Capitol Hill, pays scales not competitive with the private sector, and sometimes racist and misogynistic office cultures.
At a minimum, the corps of 16,000 people who work for the House and Senate leadership, the committees and the rank-and-file membership is disproportionately white — so much so that "the last plantation" long ago became a widespread term of derision for Congress among its employees.
The disparity is across pay grades. Just 11 percent of people in top Senate jobs are non-white, although they make two-fifths of the United States population, according to research by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focused on improving the lives of Black Americans. And the advocacy group Pay Our Interns estimates that white students get 85 percent of internships in House Republican offices and 62 percent of Democratic offices.
An exception to the view that people of color have a particularly tough time thriving on the Hill appeared Wednesday, however. President-elect Joe Biden signaled he would name Katherine Tai, the Chinese-American chief trade lawyer for the House Ways and Means Committee, as United States trade representative. It would appear to be the first direct promotion ever of a congressional staffer into a Cabinet-level job.
"From entry-level to the most senior positions, a lack of representation means that much is missing from the debates shaping our national policy and priorities," reads the introduction to the guide book by the nine groups, which have named their coalition Representative Democracy. "Decades of studies have repeatedly shown that teams with more diverse experiences, backgrounds and ideas produce better and more innovative products. Democracy itself will be better served when we have the input and influence of more voices to formulate effective and responsive national policy."
And if that high-minded appeal does not resonate with senators and House members, the book offers a more practical rationale for making their office environments more diverse, equitable and inclusive.
"Consider the increased burden high turnover creates for the rest of your staff and the amount of time spent repeating the hiring process," it says, not to mention "the time lost to addressing staff grievances over alleged unequal treatment or denied promotions."
The 36 pages of advice that follow are similarly at once pragmatic and aspirational. Be sincere and intentional about establishing policies to ensure diversity, equity, inclusion and a sense of belonging for all staffers. Define what those terms mean for your office. Be clear about the atmosphere you want to foster during a wide-ranging period for recruiting, then through transparent and standardized personnel policies. Set clear job descriptions, pay scales and expectations for promotion. Assign new hires a senior staffer as mentor.
And finally, there's a pep talk for the bosses — politicians who have in many cases spent way more time fundraising and glad-handing than they allot to fostering a healthy workplace.
"You need to become an ally to your team," the book says, addressing senators and House members, 74 percent of whom will be white next year. "That means working on yourself. It also means doing everything in your power to eliminate structural barriers for your staff. Most importantly, it means you will speak up for them, and you will commit to seeking ways to better understand their experiences."
The authors were Laura Maristany, a senior official at the Democracy Fund, which gives grants to promote a more robust political system, and Maria Robles Meier, a former House and Senate leadership aide and executive director of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.