Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A corps of future public servants, just waiting to be treated right on the Hill

Opinion

 Rep. Gwen Graham and interns

Congressional interns meet with then-Rep. Gwen Graham.

Courtesy James Liska

Liska is a government affairs consultant and former head of the congressional engagement program at The Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars.


Washington is once again playing its quadrennial game of political musical chairs. And, although the makeup of Congress is not as different as some projected, the House and Senate membership includes plenty of new faces — and, with them, a host of new staff.

With this new Congress comes ample opportunity for the institution to improve and become more efficient. A significant amount of thought leadership has been done on this topic, most notably by the perennial efforts of the Congressional Management Foundation, but it's seemed to pick up steam the last few years. The genuinely bipartisan House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, for example, has been given two more years to build on the 97 ways to modernize the place that it has already recommended.

These proposals seek to allay a wide array of concerns — about financial inefficiencies, antiquated internal processes, delayed efforts at diversity and inclusion, decades-old procedures and the paucity of opportunities for members to interact with one another informally.

But so far one element key to a functional Congress has gone unaddressed: internships.

Like so many D.C. organizations, Congress cannot function effectively without interns. Answering the phones, running bills and other papers to the floor, gathering co-signers on letters, leading Capitol tours — the members and their committees rely on interns for mission-critical functions every day.

Not all these duties are savory, either. They include getting screamed at by constituents, remaining on Capitol Hill at all hours and enduring repetitive tasks like slicing open envelopes or collating and stapling reports.

And sadly, as the events of Jan. 6 made clear, interns are no less shielded than members and paid staff from real and potentially life-threatening danger.

Yet in the work of the Modernization Committee over the past two years, internships have been mentioned only once. And it was in passing, not in reference to any reform or analysis of self-improvement. So as the panel gets back to work — with Republican William Timmons of South Carolina newly taking the top Republican seat next to Chairman Derek Kilmer, a Washington Democrat — the role and treatment of interns must be addressed.

"It's not 100, but 97 is still an A," Kilmer said last fall about the committee's roster of recommendations so far. So here are three more that would make it a perfect score:

Pay all Hill interns. Provide them with additional resources before and after their internship. And create a standardized framework for internships.

All interns must be paid. Full stop. Entry-level experience in Congress should not solely be for the wealthy and privileged. And as anyone who has interned on the Hill knows, it's real work with real responsibility. While living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, unpaid interns are forced to watch every cent they spend. Aside from living in cramped group houses, student dorms or a relative's basement, some walk miles a day to get to work — or else endure commutes from suburbs almost two hours away. And believe it or not, some interns who support our nation's policymakers may face food insecurity.

By paying all interns, Congress can ensure these crucial parts of a member's office are treated as such and are able to focus 100 percent on the work at hand.

Paying interns is not a new concept, and there have been some major victories in recent years. Momentum is building to change the way internships are viewed on an institutional level thanks to the great work done by Pay Our Interns and College to Congress. Although some internships are now funded many still are not — including those at committees. The ball remains in Congress' court to widen the pool of funds so all interns can receive a fair salary for their often Herculean efforts.

Internships aren't just boxes to be checked; they should be launchpads for careers in public service and so they should be designed as such. So the Chief Administrative Officer's office and House Administration Committee should create a set of internship standards for the House including a set of baseline duties (constituent correspondence, answering phones and drafting policy memos, for example), a required orientation to Capitol Hill logistics and etiquette, the option of a confidential post-internship exit interview with the CAO — and mandatory training for intern coordinators.

This is not intended to standardize all internship experiences, because each office has its own rhythm and needs. It could provide a benchmark for interns to use in measuring their experience, however, while guiding offices on how to properly treat and empower interns. By emphasizing training and education, Congress can help make the internship experience more fulfilling for many more young people.

Finally, as an additional investment in those seeking a career in public service, any college student spending a whole semester in the Capitol should get expanded benefits during and after their internships These could include special access to the Congressional Research Service, limited access to the Hill's primary care services, commuting subsidies, a special speakers' series and access to learning programs like the Congressional Staff Academy.

One goal of the so-called Mod Com, also known as the Fix Congress Committee, has been to fight brain drain and staff turnover. Enhancing the intern experience with fair wages, expanded resources and standardized training for both the students and the aides who supervise them will do plenty to bolster congressional staff capacity — which will strengthen the institution.

If we commit to a diverse intern corps that's empowered, paid, supported and respected, we can continue to improve Congress and make it more efficient, effective and truly reflective of the people it serves.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less