Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Younger House members a bit more bipartisan, research decides

partisan balance
MHJ/Getty Images

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less