Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Help the people fielding death threats to Congress: staff

Opinion

Congressional staff

"Thousands of congressional staff are on the front lines of our democracy and getting the brunt of angry, racist, hurtful and dangerous speech that is polluting our nation," writes Fitch.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Fitch is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation.


At a time when many Americans lament that members of Congress representing the two major parties don't have anything in common, there is one very sad metric they share: Both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are on the receiving end of a massive increase in hostile messages and death threats.

The level of vitriol flowing through the internet and phone lines to Congress is greater than at any other time in American history. Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton testified at a congressional hearing recently that the number of death threats doubled in 2021 compared to last year.

It is impossible to diminish the emotional and psychological scar this leaves with members of Congress and their families, but there is another group deeply affected that often goes unnoticed — congressional staff. Members of Congress don't answer their own phones or open emails sent to their offices — thousands of congressional staff are on the front lines of our democracy and getting the brunt of angry, racist, hurtful and dangerous speech that is polluting our nation. In a snap poll of congressional staff a few weeks ago the Congressional Management Foundation asked whether staff had recently experienced direct insults or threatening messages or communications. More than three-quarters said they had.

Perhaps one can merely cast aside concerns for staffers' welfare with a simple, "Well, that's what they signed up for when they were hired." No, not exactly. Congressional staff score amazingly high in any assessment of their level of job engagement and dedication to their profession. Staffers in Congress are not alone in their passion to help despite stressful and demanding conditions. First responders, nurses, Navy SEALS and others also make sacrifices resulting from their commitment to serve. The difference between them and congressional staff is this: most Americans who make sacrifices for others are lauded for those sacrifices, whereas congressional staff are ridiculed, belittled and literally spat upon in the public square. There comes a point where the abuse overwhelms the passion, the negativity erases all meaning of why they jumped on this crazy roller coaster called Congress to begin with.

Adding to the horror and pain is that many staffers are still working from home, and sharing phone answering duties with office colleagues. Without warning, a staffer picks up her phone to hear these chilling words: "We're coming for the congresswoman, her family, you, your family ... and we know where you live!" Before the staffer can hang up, the caller has cursed at her several times. This episode has played out countless times in the congressional community since the siege on January 6. Just think about that scene in an American home — one minute a staffer is fielding a death threat, the next moment her 6-year-old appears at her home office door asking for a peanut butter sandwich.

Leaders in Congress don't have to accept this abuse without responding. Experts in psychology and security say managers should demonstrate empathy and understanding of what staff are going through, encourage self-care and change policies to reduce the possibility that staff will be receiving "live" death threats by phone. "Leaders have to make it safe in the office for staff to express feelings and for staff to take care of themselves," said Brian Baird, a former member of Congress and clinical psychologist who has been conducting staff training sessions with CMF during the pandemic. "Building and modeling a culture of support is part of what can come out of this pandemic," he said. "We need to work on our team support and not let people fend for themselves."

CMF also strongly recommends that congressional offices temporarily stop taking live calls and move all incoming calls to voicemail. We know that some members will balk at this — however, CMF has worked with offices thathave moved to this policy and have seen no constituent push back. People are just fine getting a call back in two to four hours. These offices also report that staff are relieved from the fear of the next call. Managers: This means such a policy would result in GREATER job engagement by staff, improved morale and likely more staff retention.

For too long staff in Congress have been viewed as expendable and easily replaced. This not only has a tangible negative impact on the institution of Congress, it exacts a terrible toll on these amazing public servants. A recent news story examined the impact of the Jan. 6 insurrection and the aftermath of that attack on the mental and physical well-being of congressional staff. One staffer said: "Staff in general have been feeling like we're invisible, like nobody is looking out for us." Staff are the lifeblood of this institution, and the culture needs to change to treat them accordingly. Part of that culture of change should be to acknowledge the distressing and negative effects that this pandemic and the events of Jan. 6 are having on congressional staff, and take tangible steps to protect employees from these unbearable attacks to their mental well-being.


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
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