Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Big rules changes required, and quick, for Capitol Hill to respond to coronavirus

Opinion

Big rules changes required, and quick, for Capitol Hill to respond to coronavirus

"The rapid spread of coronavirus has made it unsafe and unwise for members of Congress — many of whom are among those most likely to become grievously ill — to convene in person," argue Daniel Schuman & Marci Harris.

Philip Rozenksi/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Schuman writes the First Branch Forecast weekly newsletter and is policy director for Demand Progress, a nonprofit group advocating for civil liberties, civil rights and government reform. Harris is a former House aide and CEO of Popvox Inc., an information and resources platform for civic engagement and legislating.

The rapid spread of coronavirus has made it unsafe and unwise for members of Congress — many of whom are among those most likely to become grievously ill — to convene in person.

Current rules, however, require members to be physically present to vote on the floors of the House and Senate. If our legislative branch is to respond effectively to this crisis and play its vital constitutional role as a check on the executive and judicial branches, it must act now to give itself the option to convene in a temporary emergency remote session.

As speaker, Nancy Pelosi has the power to convene the House outside of the chamber if the public interest requires it; Senate leaders have similar powers. Whether the House or Senate could convene online in virtual session, however, is a different matter and likely would require each chamber to vote — and in person — to amend their rules in advance.

The unique circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic make it necessary for the House and Senate to do so now.


By Friday, members of both chambers will leave Washington for a long-scheduled week of working in their districts or states, a time when no official votes are held. (All congressional travel has been canceled for next week.) With multiple governors declaring states of emergency and the spread of the virus accelerating, we may face worse circumstances than now by the time Congress is set to reconvene in 10 days. That may include a federal emergency declaration and the invocation of presidential emergency powers; the situation ahead will likely require legislation and congressional oversight concerning the emergency response, in addition to Congress' normal duties.

Most likely, it will be difficult to safely bring members back to Washington. That is why Congress must act before the week is over to permit its leadership to temporarily convene the chambers in emergency remote sessions — where members are deemed present even if they participate online — and to direct relevant committees to set rules and provide mechanisms for legislative functions to be done virtually. And that should include voting.

This will not be easy. Congress has underinvested in its own technology for decades, and online deliberations and voting requires both money and technological improvisation to adapt congressional and private sector tools. While many organizations are transitioning to remote work, Congress is not a business. Legislating is a relationship-driven process and in-person votes are where much work is done.

And so this emergency measure should be time-limited and require regular votes for renewal. Any effort must ensure that the public and media have access to all official deliberations.

All Americans hope these fears are overblown, that current efforts to mitigate harm will be successful and that our health system will meet the needs of those impacted by the virus. But in the tragic event these hopes do not bear out, Americans expect their elected officials to make wise decisions — including maintaining their own health and safety so they collectively can carry out their duties and fulfill their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Read More

Draining the Safeguards

Donald Trump

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Draining the Safeguards

A loyalty-forward government has formed right before our eyes. Jared Kushner has been tapped to help lead the Israel–Hamas talks. He wasn’t chosen for his expertise in delicate diplomacy; he was chosen because he’s the president’s son-in-law—and because some around him seem to treat his Jewish identity as if that alone were a qualification aligned with a pro-Israel posture. Identity and proximity are not expertise. That’d be like putting Linda McMahon in charge of the Department of Education because she once (seemingly!) went to school. Oh wait, we did that too. What are we doing here?

Zoom out from the Kushner headline and the method snaps into focus. First, elevate friends, family, donors, and media allies into roles once filled by deeply vetted and experienced professionals. Second, lean on “acting” titles and novel personnel rules to dodge scrutiny and degrade accountability. Third, purge the referees—advisory boards, inspectors general, nonpartisan civil servants—so the only guardrail left is personal loyalty. It’s governing by who you know, not what you know.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dwight Eisenhower
Without leaders like Dwight Eisenhower we will once again find ourselves on the precipice of a "world devoid of hope, freedom, economic stability, morals, values and human decency," writes M. Dane Waters.
Moore/Getty Images

The General's Warning: What Eisenhower Knew About Power

On September 28, 2025, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to American cities for domestic law enforcement, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing 200 Oregon National Guard members for a 60-day deployment to Portland. A federal judge temporarily blocked the move, calling the justification for military deployment "simply untethered to the facts." When the administration tried to circumvent the order by sending troops from other states, the judge expanded her ruling, blocking any federalized National Guard deployment to Oregon.

That declaration marks a break with the boundary Dwight Eisenhower insisted upon between national defense and domestic politics. His 1961 farewell address warned against exactly this misuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

An armed law enforcement agent sits in an armored vehicle as residents of Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood confront law enforcement at a gas station after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents allegedly detained an unidentified man riding in his car, in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 4, 2025.

(AFP via Getty Images)

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

A masked, federal agent in combat uniform leans out the passenger window of a Jeep and points a military rifle directly at the face of a U.S. citizen in Chicago, simply for recording him.

It should send a chill down every American’s spine. President Trump’s revenge on America’s liberal cities is an authoritarian abuse of power. Americans in 2025 should not have to live in police states or with the National Guard patrolling their streets or pointing weapons at them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

People rally around a group of interfaith clergy members as they hold a press conference downtown to denounce the Trump administration's proposed immigration sweeps in the city on Sept. 8, 2025 in Chicago.

Scott Olson, Getty Images

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

When presidents deploy the National Guard, it’s usually to handle hurricanes, riots, or disasters. Donald Trump has found a darker use for it: punishing political opponents.

Over recent months, Trump has sent federalized Guard units into Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and now Chicago—where roughly 300 Illinois Guardsmen have been federalized and another 400 troops brought in from Texas. He calls it “law and order,” but the pattern is clear: Democratic-led cities are being targeted as enemy territory. Governors and mayors have objected, but Trump is testing how far he can stretch Title 10, the section of U.S. law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard in limited cases of invasion or rebellion—a law meant for national crisis, not political theater.

Keep ReadingShow less