Winning just nine more House seats than Democrats in the 2022 midterms means the Republican caucus has very little room for error.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders celebrate after the vote on President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 3, 2025.
Yuri Gripas/Abaca Press/TNS
Mad About Politics? Blame Congress
Oct 16, 2025
The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, the legislative branch is.
Whatever you think about American politics and government, whether you are on the right, the left or somewhere in the middle, you should be mad at Congress. I don’t just mean the Republican-controlled Congress — though, by all means, be mad at them — I mean the institution as a whole.
Let’s start with the big picture.
In our constitutional system, Congress is the supreme branch of government. It is not “coequal” to other branches, and any claims to the contrary are Nixonian propaganda. The Nixon White House forced “coequal” into mainstream usage to defend itself from congressional oversight. “Coequal” doesn’t appear in the Constitution. It’s used sparingly in the Federalist Papers, but never to describe the relationship between the three branches of government to each other (save for once, to describe the parity between the House and Senate).
Just look at the powers assigned to Congress. It can fire members of the other branches; the other branches can’t fire anyone in Congress. Congress writes the laws. It has sole authority to raise taxes (hardly a minor issue to the Founding Fathers, tax rebels all), borrow money, regulate commerce, and to raise armies and declare war. Congress creates all the courts and federal agencies not specified in the Constitution. It sets and pays their salaries. It has sole authority to admit states to the union. The other branches have nothing like these powers or authorities.
But over the last century, Congress has taken itself apart like a robot ordered to put itself back in the box, giving its functions to the other branches. It bequeathed much of its regulatory powers to the executive branch and the courts. It gifted most of its war and trade authorities to the president.
Congressional leaders also stripped not just members but committee chairs of meaningful influence in the crafting of legislation, effectively disenfranchising the voters who elect them. Leadership simply declares what Congress will do and expects everyone to fall in line. When the same party controls the White House and Congress, the speaker and Senate majority leader peddle the president’s agenda.
Now, consider the moment we’re in. Across a vast array of fronts, President Donald Trump is certainly testing and arguably exceeding his authority. But because he is popular with Republican voters, congressional Republicans won’t do anything about it. Just in the last week or so, Trump ordered troops into Chicago and Portland against the wishes of the governors of Illinois and Oregon (remember, the Founders did think states were coequal with the federal government). The administration also once again rejected Congress’ power of the purse, declaring its refusal to spend money already allocated by Congress, to punish domestic opponents. Oh, and it unilaterally declared we’re at war with drug cartels — after it had ordered three military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, killing 17 people.
What has Congress done? Nothing.
Texas National Guard troops were deployed to a U.S. Army Reserve Center near Chicago Tuesday, but a federal judge did step in to temporarily halt the incursion into what Trump calls “war ravaged” Portland. In response, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller accused the judge — a Trump appointee! — of being just another “far left Democrat” guilty of “judicial insurrection” in league with domestic “terrorist networks.”
Now, I think that is ludicrous and dangerous nonsense. But maybe you don’t. Maybe you think Miller’s right. You know who could settle things? I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “shmongress.”
The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, Congress is. The vacuum created by Congress invites the president to fill it. In response, opponents go straight to the courts to thwart it, pulling the judiciary into political fights for which it’s not suited.
Indeed, if you love everything Trump has done, you should still be mad at Congress because the vast majority of his “achievements” are written in the disappearing ink of executive orders. Congress could make it impossible for judges to overrule his tariffs by making them law. By passing legislation, Congress could also prevent the next Democratic president from rescinding Trump’s orders, the way Trump rescinded Biden’s and Obama’s and Obama rescinded Bush’s.
The Founders certainly believed that courts could weigh in on the constitutionality of legislative and executive action. But they also believed that the Congress could.
Legislators swear an oath to the Constitution, too. Indeed, for much of our history, they would enforce fidelity to the Constitution. Congress would refuse to pass legislation or fund executive action it deemed unconstitutional. And among the things it considered unconstitutional were actions that encroached on its power and authority.
But the supreme branch today is a parliament of pundits, a congress of cowards, far more concerned with partisan point-scoring than honoring their oaths.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Jennifer Greenfield Speaks Out for Colorado Families
Oct 16, 2025
When Jennifer Greenfield wrote an op-ed in The Denver Post warning that proposed federal budget cuts would devastate Coloradans who rely on programs like Medicaid and SNAP, she hoped her words might help change the conversation—and the outcome. Her piece drew a wave of responses, including appreciation from state leaders and an invitation to speak at a local event. Although the GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” ultimately became law, Greenfield continues to warn about its long-term consequences. She spoke with SSN about the ripple effects of her op-ed and shared advice for fellow scholars who want their research to make a difference. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Q&A with Jennifer Greenfield
You recently wrote an op-ed about the GOP’s budget bill. What message were you hoping to get across?
Jennifer: My work focuses on family well-being—especially how people balance paid work and caregiving. In the U.S., most of us are doing both: raising kids, caring for aging parents or disabled family members, all while holding down jobs. My research looks at what kinds of policies help families not just get by, but actually thrive.
This new federal law does the opposite. It cuts critical supports like Medicaid and food assistance—programs that help working families and caregivers. And the impact stretches across people’s lives: kids losing access to food, working people losing health coverage, and older adults affected by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. It takes from those with the least and gives more to those at the top. That’s the opposite of good policymaking.
What prompted you to write the op-ed, and what was the process like?
Jennifer: I’ve written op-eds before because they’re a powerful way to reach congressional leaders or state legislators. In this case, an organization that works with the Scholars Strategy Network put out a call for scholars to write in their local papers about the effects of this bill on low- and middle-income households. I jumped on it.
Colorado’s in a particularly tough spot because of TABOR—the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights—which severely limits how the state can raise or spend money. So when the federal government pulls funding, Colorado can’t make up the difference. We’re forced to cut programs, often the ones serving the most vulnerable. That’s why I felt it was important to speak up and help people see what’s really at stake.
What kind of response did you get after it ran?
Jennifer: A few things stand out. I heard from our state treasurer—he thanked me and confirmed the bill would really hurt Colorado. That was encouraging.
Then a grassroots group in Colorado’s 8th congressional district reached out. They were organizing to pressure their representative, Gabe Evans, to oppose the bill. He ended up voting to support it, but they held a town hall event with about 150 people and invited me to speak. That invitation came as a result of the op-ed.
I was also quoted in Newsweek and have been included in a few follow-ups. U.S. News & World Report picked up the issue, too. I can’t say for sure if those national pieces stemmed from the op-ed, but the timing aligns.
What was the town hall event like?
Jennifer: It was in Greeley, a fairly rural, historically conservative part of Colorado—and yet the turnout was strong. Teachers, cancer patients, caregivers—people who would be directly affected by the cuts—came to speak. Hearing their stories and connecting those personal experiences with broader research was incredibly powerful.
At that point, Representative Evans had already voted for the House version of the bill, and it was clear he wasn’t going to change course. But the event still mattered. It made the consequences of his vote visible and started to build momentum toward holding him accountable—or replacing him.
He and his staff were invited multiple times, but didn’t show. I’m not sure if any other current elected officials were there, but at least one candidate attended. And there were conversations about organizing locally, even at the city council level. It wasn’t just about Congress—it was about building power from the ground up.
You also contacted members of Colorado’s congressional delegation. What did you hope to accomplish?
Jennifer: After the op-ed was published, I sent the link to my representative and both senators. Senators [John] Hickenlooper and [Michael] Bennet had already voted against the bill, so I wanted to thank them and offer the op-ed as a resource. Senator Bennet’s office even replied, which was great—he’s been a longtime champion of the child tax credit, which the bill also threatens.
My representative is Lauren Boebert, who’s rather famous in the U.S. She voted for the bill, and my message was that I didn’t think her vote reflected the needs of our district. I even included Douglas County-specific data showing how the cuts would hurt our community. I never heard back.
You’ve been doing public engagement for a while. How does this fit into your overall approach to research?
Jennifer: I believe in applied research—work that serves the public good. That means making findings accessible to the people who can use them: policymakers, advocates, and voters.
One example is my work on paid family and medical leave. I spent years collecting data, writing op-eds, speaking to the media, and testifying at the legislature. After multiple failed bills, we moved to a ballot initiative in 2020—right in the middle of the pandemic. I had just wrapped up a study estimating the program’s costs and benefits, and that research played a key role in getting it passed.
The program launched in January 2024, and now I’m working with the state’s new FAMLI [Family and Medical Leave Insurance] agency and a colleague to evaluate how it’s working. We just finished collecting survey data from participants, and I’ll be taking those results back to the coalition that helped pass the law so we can keep improving it.
That’s how I like to do research—not just to understand the world, but to help change it.
What advice do you have for scholars who want to get more involved in public policy?
Jennifer: The first thing I’d say is don’t be shy. My first experience came from seeing a bill I believed in and emailing the legislator to say, “Thanks—how can I help?” That turned into a long-standing relationship where she invited me to write an op-ed, testify, and stay involved—not as an advocate, but as a researcher.
Also, use the people around you who know media and policy. I’ve leaned on my university’s communications team and SSN. Academics often struggle to write clearly and concisely for a broader audience—that’s where support makes all the difference.
And relationships with media matter. Because I’ve written for The Denver Post and other local outlets before, I now have a direct line to some editors. That helped get the op-ed into the Sunday print edition, which has a bigger reach.
Finally, don’t underestimate social media. I don’t love being on camera—I’m not making TikToks—but LinkedIn and Instagram can help amplify your message. Colorado’s state treasurer found me on LinkedIn and reached out. Using social media channels also helps drive traffic to the outlet, which editors appreciate.
You co-lead the Colorado SSN chapter. What’s in store for the coming academic year?
Jennifer: We were pretty quiet last year—I was finishing an administrative role that was really time consuming—but this year I’m excited to dive back in. Even though it’s politically an off-cycle year, we’ve got a governor’s race and some important issues on the table. It’s actually a great time to push for policy change.
First, I’m hoping to recruit a new chapter co-lead. Then I want to host a fall kickoff event to get people thinking about how they can engage. My university’s Scrivner Institute of Public Policy brings together public policy faculty from different disciplines, so I’m hoping to build momentum through that network and partner with other campuses across the state. Once the legislative session starts in the spring, we’ll be ready to go deeper.
What has being part of SSN meant to you?
Jennifer: The support I’ve gotten from SSN—especially from folks like Dominik [Doemer, SSN’s Director of Communications]—has been incredibly helpful. He’s a fantastic editor, especially for someone like me who always goes over the word limit. He helps me distill the key points quickly and clearly.
I’ve also learned a ton from other chapter leaders through webinars and peer calls. We share strategies, swap ideas, and support each other. The national convening in D.C. was especially energizing—meeting people from all kinds of fields who are committed to public scholarship was inspiring.
And having the national SSN team as a resource makes a big difference. They help us stay focused, connect us with allies, and remind us to write like humans—not academics.
Jennifer Greenfield Speaks Out for Colorado Families was first published by the Scholars Strategy Network and was republished with permission.
The Scholars Strategy Network (SSN) is a national membership organization made up of college- and university-based researchers interested in improving policy and strengthening democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
James Madison foresaw factions tearing apart democracy. Today’s Congress, driven by partisanship and money, proves his warning true.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Our Amazing, Shrinking Congress
Oct 15, 2025
James Madison tried to warn us. He foresaw a grave danger to our fragile republic. No, it wasn’t an overreaching, dictatorial President. It was the people’s representatives themselves who might shred the untested constitutional fabric of the nascent United States.
Members of Congress could destroy it by neglecting the good of the country in favor of narrow, self-serving ends. Unity would collapse into endless internecine strife. Madison sounded this alarm in Federalist No. 10: he foresaw the inevitable emergence of “factions”—political parties “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
This invidious but inevitable human inclination could only be held in check if elected representatives could transcend their parochial outlook by interacting with delegates from other states and regions, with other points of view. By doing so, they would become broadly knowledgeable about vital national issues such as interstate commerce, taxes, and defense, and then enact laws that would benefit the country as a whole. If this expanding of the political horizon did not occur, Congress would either grind to a halt in hopeless deadlock or—worse—one party would exercise monopoly power over minorities.
The checks on congressional power embedded in the Constitution have so far prevented one of Madison’s fears from materializing: we see one such guardrail working—albeit messily—in the current impasse over federal expenditures. But a debilitating divisiveness has not been prevented. Today, Democrats and Republicans spend most of their time demonizing and blaming one another, stubbornly refusing to compromise. Most of the reasons for this are well understood—Citizens United, the loosening of restrictions on political contributions, the necessity of raising enormous amounts of money for campaigns, and the concomitant need to cater to well-to-do ideologues for contributions. But there is another, less apparent development that has dissuaded members of Congress from working together. This form of factionalism has infected Washington and isolated it. It has led lawmakers to think less and less about the People and focus more on the voters who elected them.
This represents a subtle but dramatic change from the ideal of national service. (The Constitution is vague about the duties and obligations of Congress, making this devolution possible.) It is evident, for example, in how Washington lawmakers see themselves differently. Whereas they once referred to their home states and districts as where they came from, they now affirm on their websites that this is whom they work for. If you visit the Capitol with a pass to your own representative or senator’s office, you won’t be welcomed in any others: they only serve their constituents. Perhaps most regrettably, Congress members no longer accept inquiries, suggestions, or criticism from persons residing out of state or out of district. (Campaign checks are welcomed, however.)
Half a century ago, you could write to Ted Kennedy, William Fulbright, Birch Bayh, and other Senate luminaries and not only would your letter be read, but you’d also receive a signed response addressing the issue you had raised. (I still treasure them, like papyrus scrolls.) In effect, your Congress is not the 435 members of the House and 50 members of the Senate: it has been reduced to just three lawmakers—two senators and a single House representative. In other words, your ability to potentially have influence on legislation has shrunk by over 99 percent. Constituents are fooling themselves if they think their representatives will personally read what they have written: the daily flood of emails and letters makes that impossible.
As their connections to the American people have been drastically reduced, members of Congress have increasingly focused on pleasing the people (voters) back home. Most of the tasks performed in their offices involve “casework”—fielding requests for tours and for flags flown over the Capitol, helping obtain government benefits, and providing guidance in applying for the service academies. Lawmakers also endear themselves by “bringing home the bacon”—obtaining federal funds for local organizations and projects, showing how they can “deliver.” But this assistance has nothing to do with passing laws. Even constituents can feel left out of that process as senators and representatives depend heavily on advice from lobbyists and contributions from special-interest groups and large donors to determine their votes. In this money-saturated climate, the “public interest” becomes difficult to discern, let alone honor. And it is no wonder that most ordinary Americans feel left out. Or that they become apathetic and disengage from politics.
But, for members of Congress, this new relationship has worked well. Making themselves popular by doing favors sets them apart from their colleagues in an increasingly unpopular branch of government. And serving constituent needs instead of the general good has been a winning strategy for legislators. In the 2024 election, for example, 96.6 percent of sitting representatives were returned to office. As one watchdog organization has sardonically put it, “Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection.”
What, if anything, can be done to close this breach between lawmakers and the people? Given the makeup of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, there seems little likelihood of its overturning rulings allowing big money to have such an inordinate influence on elections. In order to change Congress’s ways, we will have to change the incentives that motivate its members’ behavior. Money is the most salient determinant. But how can “small” donors hope to have a greater impact than big ones? The answer would be: by collectively backing candidates from all parts of the country and from both parties who are committed to overcoming partisan gridlock and getting things done. Voters need to be proactive and empower themselves rather than passively let self-serving political organizations and wealthy contributors set the agenda and choose candidates for them. This goal could be accomplished through an online, interactive people’s forum dedicated to informing the public about candidates’ views, providing feedback to politicians, and donating to ones favoring legislative accomplishment over ideology. As such a forum expands, office seekers would become more broadly aware of public opinion and responsive to it. Money will still speak. But if it is going to continue to dominate electoral politics, isn’t it better to double down on this game than to throw in the towel and walk away?
John V. H. Dippel, an independent historian, has written several books on various topics in modern American and European history. In the late 1960s, he successfully petitioned several Senators to take up the cause of increasing First Amendment rights for members of the U.S. military. He welcomes the chance to lay out the case for doing so now through The Fulcrum.Keep ReadingShow less
Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.
Getty Images, LeoPatrizi
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?
Oct 15, 2025
Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.
But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.
In 2004, I wrote the book "We Still Hold These Truths" to argue that all Democratic policies have been de facto based on the Declaration of Independence and that Democrats should have as their stated mission statement, the implementation of the promises of the Declaration.
More recently, I have written numerous articles that show the deceitfulness behind both Trump's and Spalding's positions. (See, "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie," "What Exactly Does 'All Men Are Created Equal' Mean in the Declaration of Independence," and "Countering Trump's Alternate Reality.") In each case, the principles or facts have either been conveniently edited to suit Republicans' perspective or have been turned on their head.
One way that Republicans seek to wrap themselves in the flag is to commit themselves to the flag, both through reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and by showing the flag outside their homes.
But what meaning does it have when MAGA adherents recite the Pledge? The Pledge has always been aspirational in that its description of our republic, while rooted partly in fact and partly in folklore, has never reflected the reality of our country.
When Trump and his supporters recite the Pledge, the words should stick in their throat: so opposite are the words to Trump's vision and thus their vision that even their rote recitation is duplicitous and has the effect of mockery. At best, it is an exercise in self-deception.
We all know the words of the Pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Let's start from the end: "with liberty and justice for all." For the third of our fellow Americans who are either poor or people of color (the poor - 12.4%; people of color - 27%; half of those living in poverty are White, thus the total is roughly 33%), there has always been very little liberty and justice. After Trump was re-elected, his executive orders have made the outlook for the future even worse, as he has eliminated all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts by any organization or government receiving Federal funding.
Liberty means having the opportunity to pursue life, to pursue your dreams. But for this segment of our citizens, there is precious little opportunity, starting from the fact that they don't have true educational opportunity, and without that, there is no way forward.
Justice means both justice in courts of law and social justice—that people are treated fairly, with equality. While the courts may treat the poor and people of color fairly, they experience little social justice, both in that they suffer unequal treatment in many areas of government action, and in the fact that the enforcers of the law—the police—do not treat them with equality. Many Americans—Trump supporters—complain that the government favors the poor and people of color with its largesse. Yes, there are programs that focus on these groups, but on balance, they suffer discrimination at the hands of the government in many ways.
"Indivisible." Our country seems more deeply divided than at any time in our history, with the exception of the Civil War. In the past, regardless of regional or class differences, people felt that we were all Americans and all came together in moments of crisis. We were able to agree to disagree.
Today, because of Trump, that is no longer the case. The two almost equally divided halves of this country do not agree to disagree. Each side feels the other is traitorous and a danger to the country's future. There is frequent talk of civil war in the future. It is only because of the strength of Mike Pence's commitment to the Constitution that this country was not plunged into a constitutional crisis on January 6, 2020.
And what meaning does "one nation under God" have? It is true that 74% of Americans report that they believe in God. But what does that mean? Even in the "born again" Evangelical heyday, when kids wore wristbands that asked, "What would Jesus do?" believers did not act as Jesus would have acted. It was a sad farce. It would, unfortunately, be more accurate to say that, in reality, we are a God-less nation. That money and greed rule, not God.
We are a nation that has lost its way, even the imperfect way that we achieved in the 20th century. Even before Trump, our social fabric, our social contract, was coming undone. It started with Reagan. But under Trump's influence, half the nation has become the captive of what is, in reality, fake news. They have become believers of the "big lie" promoted by Trump. For them, there is no commonality with liberal Americans, people of color, or the poor.
Why has the Democratic Party been so silent as the meaning of America's founding documents, this country's values, has been deceitfully corrupted and appropriated by Trump and his MAGA allies? As I've said in other articles, the Democratic Party must take up the cudgel to argue that they are the party that is truest to the founding principles of our country; they must wrap themselves—deservedly so—in the flag; and they must explain to the people how Trump and his MAGA allies are destroying those very principles.
And they must show how this is not just a matter of philosophy; this has a very practical impact on the middle class, as well as people of color and the poor. Indeed, all the people, both those struggling and those who are rich, will be uplifted when the promises of the Declaration are implemented because everyone will benefit as the country benefits from the new prosperity of those who were formerly without. This is trickle-up economics, and its impact is real as opposed to the debunked trickle-down economics of the Republicans.
My feeling is that we—this country—will survive, that Trumpism will go the way of other aberrations as a new generation comes of age. America was once justifiably a light to other nations and the downtrodden of the world. It was never perfect, but it was a lot better than most places on Earth.
I hope that the day comes when America is once again both a light unto its own people as well as the rest of the world, and that the Pledge of Allegiance regains real meaning.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More