Younger House members are more likely to work across the aisle than their older colleagues, a new study shows.
Bipartisanship is extraordinarily hard to come by on Capitol Hill, one of the main reasons why the legislative branch has devolved into near-total dysfunction and further hobbled the regular operations of democracy. The report provides a glimmer of hope the next generation of lawmaker leaders may be willing to change that.
The findings were released this week by the Millennial Action Project, which was created to champion young legislators committed to bipartisanship, and the Lugar Center, a think tank promoting civility and collaboration across party lines.
For the study, researchers created a formula to quantify the bipartisan tendencies of every current House member. It was based on how often in this term they have signed on to bills introduced by someone of the opposite party, and how many of their own proposals have attracted sponsorship from across the aisle. (The numbers are one of the few ways to quantify behavior that often manifests itself in subjective acts of behind-closed-doors cooperation.)
The results were compared to how members of Congress behaved from 1993 to 2018, a period when partisan loyalties soared while collaborative legislating fell into disfavor and disuse each year more than the last. High scores identified members acting in a more bipartisan way than the average of the previous quarter-century.
One in six House members, 75 of them, were identified as young because at the start of this Congress they had not yet turned 45. But they accounted for 22 percent of the members who scored above zero for bipartisanship. (That group of 185 members represents 43 percent of the House.)
"This correlation is all the more impressive in that it has held true for three Congresses in a row and both younger Republicans and younger Democrats are scoring above the historical average," said Dan Diller of the Lugar Center.
Overall, 56 percent of younger members were in positive territory for being more bipartisan than the recent historical average — but that was true of only 40 percent of their older colleagues.
Steven Olikara, who runs the Millennial Action Project, said this study affirms that "the next generation of leaders is already redefining how we govern."
Younger members with the highest bipartisanship scores:
- 1. Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey
- 2. Republican Lee Zeldin of New York
- 3. Republican Elise Stefanik of New York
- 4. Democrat Joe Cunningham of South Carolina
- 5. Democrat Abigail Spanberger of Virginia
Younger members with the lowest bipartisanship scores:
- 73. Democrat Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
- 72. Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
- 71. Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
- 70. Republican Michael Cloud of Texas
- 69. Democrat Rashida Tlaib of Michigan
Older members with the highest bipartisanship scores:
- 1. Republican Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
- 2. Republican John Katko of New York
- 3. Republican Peter King of New York
- 4. Republican Don Young of Alaska
- 5. Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey
Older members with the lowest bipartisanship scores:
- 360. Republican Gary Palmer of Alabama
- 359. Republican Rick Allen of Georgia
- 358. Republican Chip Roy of Texas
- 357. Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio
- 356. Republican Tom McClintock of California
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.