On issues ranging from the Epstein Files to artificial intelligence, there were 12 “almost unanimous” votes in Congress this year, in which only one legislator in the Senate or House voted against a bill. What were they?
In cases where the legislator explained their vote publicly – such as an interview, House floor speech, or social media post – The Fulcrum quotes them below. In cases where such a public defense wasn’t readily available, The Fulcrum contacted their press secretary or communications director for an explanation.
Epstein Files Transparency Act
Lone dissenter: Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA3)
What the bill does
Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had a large rolodex of famous friends and contacts, including a pre-presidency Donald Trump, a post-presidency Bill Clinton, and Bill Gates, though none have been explicitly tied to Epstein’s trafficking of underaged girls. He died in his prison cell of 2019, reportedly from suicide.
The “Epstein files” are a collection of Justice Department documents and reports from their investigations. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the documents’ public release.
On November 18, the House passed it by 427-1. The lone dissenter: Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA3).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that, as the old expression goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
“This fight isn’t about politics –– it’s about humanity,” lead House sponsor Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17) said in a press release. “It’s about justice for the courageous survivors and taking on the Epstein class who have been shielded for too long. Passing my bipartisan bill… is a step toward changing our rotten system and standing up for American values.”
What opponents say
Rep. Higgins countered that the bill didn’t provide strong enough privacy protections.
“What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today: it abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America,” Rep. Higgins wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.”
“If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt.”
The law says the Attorney General “may” redact or withhold certain files if they meet one of five criteria, such as if they contain personally identifying information or include images depicting abuse. However, the law doesn’t actually require such redacting or withholding.
Who else supported it?
Notably, every other House Republican who cast a ballot indeed voted in favor – even though only four House Republicans had signed the actual discharge petition forcing the vote in the first place: Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO4), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14), Nancy Mace (R-SC1), Thomas Massie (R-KY4).
The (likely) difference? Back when the discharge petition was circulating, President Trump opposed the files’ disclosure. But by the time of the actual vote, he’d flipped to supporting it.
What happened next
On November 19, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. That same day, President Trump signed it into law.
Now the issue is whether the Justice Department will actually release all the Epstein Files after all, or whether they’ll claim executive privilege to withhold some or even most.
Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands Restoration Act
Lone dissenter: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA18)
What the bill does
After Alaska became a state in 1959, legal fights emerged over the ownership of certain lands. Did they belong to the indigenous Native Alaskans, or to the new state?
So in 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to settle the issue, transferring certain lands to newly-created for-profit “regional corporations” and “local village corporations,” owned by Alaska Native shareholders themselves.
The Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands Restoration Act would allow these native “corporations” to retrieve back certain lands they’d previously given to the state, years or even decades prior.
On February 4, the House passed it by 412-1. The lone dissenter: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA18).
What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill rights a historic wrong.
“When the ANCSA was signed into law over 50 years ago, it was a historic legislative achievement for Alaska,” lead House sponsor Rep. Nick Begich (R-AL) said in a press release. “However, what we saw over time was that revisions were needed to allow for greater decision-making authority among our Alaska Native communities.”
“What we have done is remove unnecessary federal barriers and put the decision-making power back in the hands of Alaskans,” Rep. Begich continued. “Over 80 villages can finally move forward with building homes, improving infrastructure, and growing their economies.”
What opponents say
Rep. Lofgren voted no for a perhaps-unexpected reason: "she voted no based on her long-standing opposition to gaming,” her office said in an emailed statement to The Fulcrum.
“Prior to last year, longstanding legal interpretation held that land received by village corporations was subject to state and local law, and that tribal law did not apply. The Department of Interior issued a new memorandum last year allowing federally recognized tribes in Alaska to assert jurisdiction over corporation allotments. This has potentially opened the land to gaming.”
Indeed, in 2024 during the final year of the Biden administration, the Interior Department released a legal opinion giving tribes jurisdiction over these Alaska Native land allotments. But the Trump administration reversed that in September 2025, giving such jurisdiction back to Alaska.
However, that was after the February 2025 congressional vote.
What happened next
On June 18, the Senate passed the bill by voice vote. On July 7, President Trump signed it into law.
SPACE Act
Lone dissenter: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA8)
What the bill does
A recent government report found 17 out of 24 federal agencies analyzed were using less than one-quarter of their headquarter building’s capacity. Several, including the Department of Agriculture and the Social Security Administration, were even using less than 10%.
The SPACE (Shared Property Agency Collaboration and Engagement) Act would task the government with developing more shared-space arrangements among federal departments and agencies.
On September 8, the House passed it by 397-1. The lone dissenter: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA8).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the bill would reduce government waste and inefficiencies.
“When I came to D.C. I was shocked to learn that many federal buildings throughout our country are nowhere near full or are sitting empty,” lead House sponsor Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO3) said in a press release. “Agencies often fail to share space and have large vacancies, even though they are only blocks from each other.
“In the long-term, this [bill] will save Americans money by consolidating the number of buildings our government owns, maintains, and pays for.”
What opponents say
Rep. Beyer countered that the executive branch shouldn’t be allowed to make such decisions without legislative branch approval.
“That vote happened at a time when the Trump administration had recently ordered a bunch of agency relocations, one of which affected the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, and the Patent and Trademark Office,” Rep. Beyer’s office told The Fulcrum in an emailed statement. “The latter two are located in Congressman Beyer’s district.”
“He had significant concerns about [the government’s] handling of those relocations, and therefore opposed a bill that increased [the government’s] authority to move agencies around without congressional approval.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee.
To clarify: the Trump administration’s aforementioned 2025 relocations for the NSF and HUD were still within the greater Washington, D.C. area – unlike other Trump initiatives to relocate certain other federal agencies out of the D.C. area entirely. For example, in 2019 during his first term, Trump moved the Bureau of Land Management headquarters from D.C. to Colorado. This move was reversed in 2021 under the Biden administration.
Allowing state and local regulations for AI
Lone dissenter: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
What the policy does
Congressional Republicans spent this spring and summer crafting the One Big Beautiful Act, their 331-page package of tax cuts and deregulations. But one proposed deregulation proved controversial even within their own party: instituting a 10-year ban on state or local regulations for AI (artificial intelligence). 17 Republican governors even signed a letter opposing it.
While Senate Republicans forged a compromise limiting the ban to only five years instead, even that proved unpopular. So an amendment was introduced to repeal the ban entirely – in other words, allowing state and local AI regulations to proceed.
On July 1, the Senate passed it by 99-1. The lone dissenter: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).
Sen. Tillis’s office didn’t respond to a request from The Fulcrum for comment.
(Notably, this was the only Senate example of a “lone dissenter” vote in 2025. All other instances were in the House.)
What supporters say
Supporters argue that states and localities should be allowed to create laws in this area, given the recent failures of more comprehensive federal efforts.
“Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm – including Tennessee creators and precious children,” lead Senate sponsor Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a press release. “This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives, and I am pleased it will no longer be included.”
What opponents say
While The Fulcrum was unable to determine why Sen. Tillis voted no, major companies including Google and OpenAI (creator of ChatGPT) argued that a federal preemption would prevent a potential patchwork of differing and potentially-conflicting state laws.
After the Senate voted to repeal a federal preemption, the White House considered enacting a federal preemption by executive order. However, they paused the potential executive order in November, after pushback from privacy advocates and state governments.
However, Trump is now advocating Congress pass it themselves, either as a standalone bill or as a part of the annual “must-pass” NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
“We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race,” President Trump posted on Truth Social. “Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”
Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act
Lone dissenter: Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC5)
What the bill does
VA (Veterans Affairs) forms can be difficult and time-consuming for former servicemembers and their families.
“The complexity… can be frustrating to the average person and overwhelming for veterans with mental health issues and [traumatic brain injuries], hindering their ability to fill out complete, error-free, and timely claims,” Disabled Army Veterans (DAV) Assistant National Legislative Director Marquis D. Barefield said in House subcommittee testimony. “Making the forms user-friendly could lead to higher utilization rates and more accurate claims processing.”
The Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act would require the department to contract with a nongovernmental third party to improve such forms.
On May 19, the House passed it by 386-1. The lone dissenter: Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC5).
Rep. Norman’s office didn’t respond to a request from The Fulcrum for comment.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that after fighting overseas and risking their lives, servicemembers shouldn’t have to navigate unending bureaucracy to receive their healthcare and other services.
“Our military members dedicate their lives to serving our nation. The last thing they need when they come home are mountains of daunting paperwork,” lead House sponsor Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA8) said in a press release. “The [bill] will ease the burden of paperwork felt by so many of our veterans and their loved ones.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY4)
Meet the new year, same as the old year.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY4) is perhaps the most frequent and regular “lone dissenter” on congressional votes, doing so at least once a year (if not more) in 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018, and 2017. While officially a Republican, his iconoclastic and libertarian-leaning policies often put him out of step with his own party.
This year, Rep. Massie was the lone dissenter on three votes.
United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act
What the bill does
Taiwan is the world’s largest trading partner with the U.S. that doesn’t have a treaty to prevent so-called “double taxation” on investments. But because the U.S. maintains an “unofficial” relationship with Taiwan, to avoid antagonizing China which claims jurisdiction over the area, the U.S. can’t ratify an official treaty.
But the same policy can be accomplished through legislation instead. So a bipartisan coalition of 30 Republicans and 16 Democrats cosponsored the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act. On January 15, the House passed it by 423-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill would mutually support both homegrown businesses and a reliable financial ally.
“American and Taiwanese workers and businesses need relief from the double-tax burdens they face when operating across our borders,” lead House sponsor Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO8) said in a press release. “This legislation will encourage greater investment in our communities and create jobs while promoting prosperity for America and a key economic partner.”
"By providing greater certainty for businesses small and large investing overseas, we can strengthen the foundation of our economic partnership in a key region of the world.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the legislation would raise both the deficit and inflation rates.
The legislation “was a component of a gimmicky bill that Rep. Massie voted against the previous year, because of his concerns that [last year’s bill’s] many gimmicks would add to the debt and increase inflation,” his office said in an emailed statement to The Fulcrum. “His vote against [this year’s bill] was consistent with his previous vote.”
The House passed last year’s larger bill, the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024, by 357-70. Support was mostly bipartisan, with Republicans supporting it by 169-47 and Democrats by 188-23. Sure enough, Rep. Massie voted no.
The bill never received a Senate vote.
What’s next
This year's 2025 bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Finance Committee.
A resolution condemning antisemitism
What the resolution does
A symbolic House resolution condemned antisemitism, encouraged educating the American people about the Jewish-American community’s history, and encouraged the community’s safety “including the workplace, college and university campuses, synagogues, and at home.”
On May 14, the House passed it by 421-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the 2025 resolution honors and recognizes an important demographic for both the past and present of the country.
“As we celebrate the 20th year of Jewish American Heritage Month, I am proud to open the doors of understanding to everyone about all the remarkable contributions that generations of Jewish Americans made to shape our nation’s history, culture, and society,” lead House sponsor Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL25) said in a press release. “This celebration is also one of the most effective ways to combat rising antisemitism, as Jews and non-Jews alike come to learn about all the amazing Jewish Americans.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that it's not Congress’s job to “legislate thought” or protect people on their own private property.
“GOP leadership put this Wasserman-Schultz (former chair of the DNC) resolution to a vote and then announced we would go home a day early. I think antisemitism is bad, but dictating what people can say or think is not Congress’s job,” Rep. Massie posted on X, formerly Twitter. “When are we going to do our jobs?”
Rep. Massie’s post also embedded a photo of the printed resolution, with yellow highlights and pen underlines for parts he found particularly problematic.
In particular, he underlined passages that “calls on elected officials [to] counter all acts of antisemitism” and “takes all possible steps to ensure the safety, security, and dignity of American Jews in all aspects of their lives” including “at home.” (Where, as a libertarian, Massie presumably feels its people’s own responsibility to protect themselves, rather than the government’s.)
What happens next
A House resolution is only voted on by the lower chamber, not the Senate, nor sent to the president for signature.
Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act
What the bill does
Organ trafficking and harvesting, or the nonconsensual removal of human organs, is a crime in the U.S.. But the practice is particularly widespread in China, where it’s been used as a government punishment against the Muslim minority Uyghurs in concentration camps, plus also against practitioners of the religious movement Falun Gong.
The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act would impose sanctions on people who commit organ trafficking or organ harvesting, from any country, including potential visa and passport revocations.
On May 7, the House passed it by 406-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the practice is barbaric and must be stopped, as the U.S. effectively outlawed it 41 years ago with the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.
“State-sponsored forced organ harvesting is big business for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party but shows absolutely no signs of abating,” lead House sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ4) said in a House floor speech. “Which is why we and the rest of the world need to step up, particularly the democracies of this world.”
What opponents say
In 2023, Massie was one of two representatives to vote against a prior version of the legislation, alongside Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14).
“Yesterday, I voted against a bill aimed at stopping organ trafficking because it gives our president broad authority to sanction people without any adjudication & defines anyone who pays for an organ donation as an organ trafficker, punishable by the U.S.,” Massie tweeted on the platform then called Twitter, now X.
"It's just another example of us trying to stick our nose in another country's business and write their laws," Massie said to Fox News Digital two years later about his 2025 vote. “And at the end of the day, they're gonna do what they're gonna do, and it's just sort of a virtue signal over here."
This time around, though, Rep. Greene voted yes, leaving Rep. Massie as the lone no vote.
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI12)
Ranking among the most progressive members of Congress, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI12) was one of the founding members of “The Squad,” a group of four freshman women first elected in 2018.
She had four such “lone dissenter” votes in 2025. None of the other three original squad members – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14), Ilhan Omar (D-MN5), or Ayanna Pressley (D-MA7) – had any.
In other words, for all of the votes below, those other three “Squad” members either voted in favor or didn’t vote.
Rep. Tlaib’s office didn’t respond to a request from The Fulcrum for comment.
Subterranean Border Defense Act
What the bill does
As controversial as issues of immigration and border enforcement usually are, one recent bill received nearly unanimous approval.
The Subterranean Border Defense Act would require Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to submit an annual report to Congress about Mexican cartels' use of tunnels and plans for how to counter them. Again, it would only require an annual report, not change actual policy.
On March 10, the House passed it by 402-1.
Rep. Tlaib’s office didn’t respond to a request from The Fulcrum for comment. Back in March, her office also didn’t respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill would keep Congress informed about an ongoing and dangerous safety issue.
“With border crossings thankfully going down since January, it’s safe to assume this will drive threats underneath our border through these tunnels. This legislation will ensure Congress has sufficient knowledge and oversight in regard to this dynamic threat,” lead House sponsor Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ2) said in a press release. “Effective border security is created by overlapping deterrents.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Expressing support for local law enforcement officers
What the legislation does
A symbolic resolution, with no official title, offered “support” for local law enforcement officers ahead of National Police Week.
On May 13, the House passed it by 411-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that local police and other law enforcement risk injury and even death to shield their municipalities.
“As a former sheriff, I know firsthand the courage, professionalism, and selflessness that our law enforcement officers bring to the job every single day,” lead House sponsor Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS4) said in a press release. “These men and women are the backbone of public safety in our communities. They run toward danger, not away from it — and they do it to protect people they may never meet.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Concurrent resolutions are symbolic measures that remain solely within Congress and don’t go to the president for signature.
Research Security and Accountability in DHS Act
What the bill does
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducts research and development in areas ranging from technology to infrastructure. But a recent government report found that only six of the 12 “high-risk project” contracts analyzed included three types of special clauses intended to safeguard the information and prevent leaks.
The Research Security and Accountability in DHS Act would require the creation of a department-wide policy to better prevent such potential unauthorized disclosures.
On March 10, the House passed it by 410-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill takes a strong stand on national defense, especially with adversarial nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea trying to steal U.S. secrets.
“This bill will strengthen safeguards to prevent unauthorized access of sensitive information, ensuring that our nation’s research and development efforts remain secure,” lead House sponsor Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL5) said in a press release.
“Chinese espionage is one of our country’s greatest threats,” Rep. Strong added. “Protecting our innovations is critical to national security, and this legislation takes an important step in ensuring the integrity of DHS research.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Wabeno Economic Development Act
What the bill does
Tony's Wabeno Redi-Mix is a locally-owned small business based in Wabeno, Wisconsin, specializing in concrete, sand, gravel, and limestone. Owner Tony Smith projects the company will run out of available materials soon.
The Wabeno Economic Development Act would transfer 14 acres of nearby national forest to the company.
On July 22, the House passed it by 410-1.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the move is good for a local business at risk of otherwise going under.
“This conveyance will deliver long-term economic growth and protect local jobs for the people of Wabeno and Forest County,” lead House sponsor Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI7) said in a press release. “It will ensure Tony’s Wabeno Redi-Mix stays open and continues serving the community for years to come.”
What happens next
The bill awaits a potential Senate vote, where it’s been referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Vice President J.D. Vance’s Tiebreaking Senate Votes, 2025
Congress Bill Spotlight: $2.50 for America’s 250th Act
Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.
The Great American Grumpfest
Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.
President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.
Credit Trump this much. He has a singular gift for picking at scabs that other politicians would rather ignore and pushing us into reckonings we don’t need.
The thing is, Americans have seen all this before. Sometimes the makeover we were encouraged to undertake was more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Whatever direction we were pushing, however, the reckoning we had in mind this time had to be more forthright and the conclusion more definitive than it was the last time.
Our current discontents, the ones behind the reckoning President Trump has been trying to inspire, are not trivial. Included among them are immigration, birthright citizenship, exploding healthcare costs, election rigging, a gag-inducing national debt, how we educate our children, too many genders, racial differences we can’t move past, a lopsided economy that favors more well-off Americans, and historic levels of political corruption and graft. Add to these the several foreign adventures he has pushed us into or is anxious to undertake, and you have the makings of a national headache the likes of which we haven’t had in half a century.
All the elbow-throwing and overheated rhetoric we’re using today have begun to look almost normal in all the ways that bickering neighbors and feuding family members appear normal. But they have also made us look mean-spirited and have portrayed our differences as irreconcilable. To ourselves, of course, but also to many people outside the United States who might be forgiven for turning their heads and not looking at the national car wreck we Americans show no interest in avoiding.
The good news, as I suggested above, is that Americans have had a great deal of practice dealing with challenges and national car wrecks like these.
This essay begins to lay out the reasons why.
By way of illustration, we have our seemingly insatiable demand for more bad news about race in America.
Sixty years after being released from the legal constrictions that bedeviled both white and black Americans, many white people have come to believe the color that used to make them unassailable is now a sign of a moral inferiority born of a racial animus they can never wash off. Many black people, on the other hand, are insisting that America is as hopelessly stacked against them as the formerly unassailable white people’s ancestors used to tell their black ones.
The result is that many people today are buying into racist nightmares and mumbo jumbo that their black and white ancestors worked hard and effectively to put in each other’s heads.
This might be dismissed as crazy behavior if it weren’t so important to rituals Americans have long used to express their deepest fears about each other while figuring out what move they can make that won’t end with their world crashing down on everybody’s head.
Unfortunately, the kind of cultural sleight of hand we have used to ramp up our racial differences has been appropriated by people who have many other cultural fears and unresolved differences with each other. Their clumsy but culturally prescribed missteps are making all these other issues look as irremediable as our racial problems.
A good place to start an answer to how we back away from ledges is Alexis de Tocqueville’s writing on early-19th-century American democracy. He had an optimistic take on Americans’ unscripted displays of public bravado, recrimination, and payback.
For him, these were occasions when people tried to mitigate the effects of the unfair hand they were dealing someone else or had themselves been dealt by behaving in ways quite at odds with how they would otherwise be expected to act. These inversions of what Tocqueville called “the natural order of conscience” presented themselves as a loud but culturally muted challenge to the hypocrisies that people had built into the world they’d made together.
One of his favorite illustrations of early-American hypocrisy involved slave masters sleeping with their less-than-worthy slaves. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t pick up on all the ways that slaves messed with their owners. Their well-chronicled and quiet resistance showed that even severely ill-treated people can exercise more control over their lives than outsiders appreciate.
Be that as it may, such inversions of a people’s “natural order of conscience” make a good public show of them wrestling with demons they can’t or may not want to shake off, but in any case, are nowhere close to figuring out how to cast out.
Implicit in these disruptions was the discomforting idea that people might flip the entire script and turn the world on its head in more permanent ways. That kind of flipping worked out better for us in our revolution against England than in our Civil War. These events taught us the value of stepping back from historically unprecedented ledges.
Americans of late have been giving loud expression to a long list of things they don’t like about each other and the last makeover they started but didn’t finish a half-century ago. The outcome of our fights today will be as revealing as they are embarrassing to everyone who imagined they could recast our country in a way that privileged their favorite kind of Americans.
Their disappointment with the accommodations they strike will be palpable, but the middling results they achieve with all their pushing and shoving won’t be anything they can’t live with.
Anthropologists who have written about such moments in other cultures less “advanced” than our own show that people find ways to work around their seemingly irreconcilable differences without ever fully resolving them. Indeed, the patches and repairs people make have the unheralded effect of reinforcing rather than undermining the legitimacy of the practices and values they thought were fundamentally flawed.
For example…
White guilt and black pessimism do more good than putting cash into the pockets of professional shamers and handwringers. They give the rest of us who don’t feel guilty or powerless more time to make the world less racially unequal. Good news.
Regarding illegal immigration, the entrance requirements for future immigrants will remain stringent. Americans will applaud the continued detention and deportation of the few illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. Good news.
All the people who came to the United States without being legally vetted and were locked up for a time will be released in numbers small enough to avoid serious media attention. Along with the several million other good people who snuck in but avoided capture, the former detainees will go to school, find gainful employment, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. Many will eventually become citizens. Good news.
Investigations into election tampering and Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential loss will come to an unceremonious conclusion the day after his second term ends. Many Americans will grumble about this, but there will also be some quiet partying, too. Good and bad news.
Congressional hearings into all the grifting accomplished by people tied to the Trump administration will end without anyone having to pay a dime back to the American taxpayers. Bad news, we’ll learn to live with.
New laws and regulations will be created in the hope that the kind of corruption practiced by President Trump will not be repeated for another 250 years. Good news, I hope we’ll live long enough to enjoy.
Show trials for people who allegedly vandalized the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, if they happen, will get big television viewer ratings. Good news.
Trials for pardoned Capitol insurrectionists who committed serious crimes after their release should get more attention, but won’t. Bad news.
We will continue to hear nothing from most of the people who were pardoned for crimes they committed in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down for the rest of their life. Good news.
The gold-gilded ornaments that Donald Trump had plastered all over the White House will be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president will sell them on eBay. Fun news.
American taxpayers end up paying for most of the new East Wing, the removal of the miniature gladiatorial arena that was built behind the White House, and the restoration of the White House rose garden. Bad news.
The Triumphal Arch was never built. Good news.
Trad wives and gay couples raise perfectly lovely children. Good but unsurprising news.
Trans men and women learn that most Americans can’t figure out who they used to be. No one gives a second thought to their use of “family bathrooms” or “unisex bathrooms” in public settings, businesses, and schools. Communities will sponsor athletic teams that have trans boys and girls just to show they can. Good news.
Budget deficits will be kicked down the road for someone else’s children to pay down. Bad news.
Federal agencies that had their budgets and employee ranks slashed during President Trump’s second term are getting some of the money and lost positions back. Good news.
Elite universities will buy their way out of DEI purgatory by competing for conservative scholars whose inflated salaries dwarf those of their liberal colleagues, who will think about suing their institutions for reverse discrimination but won’t be able to figure out who would pay for it or care. More fun news.
Okay. I’ve probably missed some ways that Americans will step back from the ledges they have been making noises about leaping off. But to the extent that my predictions pan out, the best and most important moral of the stories about us stepping away is this: everything we lost and took back, or had returned to us, will have happened without our government collapsing, civic traditions crumbling, or our people beating each other up.
The reason why is that the differences Americans have with each other really weren’t as irreconcilable as we made them out to be. The empty-sounding bromide that Americans have more that unites us than divides us turns out to be true, not just metaphorically but in fact.
Now that is really something to celebrate.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.