Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Broad range of Hill staff diversity among senators seeking the presidency

Michael Bennet

Sen. Michael Bennet's staff is closest aligned to the overall demographics of the Democratic Party.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

All seven senators running for president have Capitol Hill staffs more racially diverse than the states they represent, and only two of them employ a smaller share of white people than the Democratic electorate they're seeking to win over.

The demographics of their offices, and those of all 40 of their colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, were revealed last week in the most recent edition of a report the Senate leadership has been commissioning over the past dozen years in an effort to promote more gender, ethnic and sexual identity diversity on that side of the Capitol.

Getting more people from different backgrounds and experiences to work (and have internships) on Capitol Hill has become an increasingly emphatic goal of those seeking to improve not only the functionality but also the public's perception of the legislative branch.

And in the opening stages of the 2020 presidential campaign, when the Democratic Party will be counting on increased turnout among minority voters, party leaders have been talking up their commitment to diversity with renewed intensity.


Kamala Harris of California has the Senate personal office staff with the highest share of non-white workers, at 70 percent. The only other black candidate in the Democratic field, Cory Booker of New Jersey, is No 3. with 61 percent staff of color. (In between is Hawaii's Brian Schatz.)

Bernie Sanders (28 percent) and Amy Klobuchar (38 percent) have the least diverse collections of aides among the Senate's current White House aspirants, but his Vermont and her Minnesota are also the whitest of the seven states represented by the contenders.

And both Sanders and Klobuchar increased the overall diversity of their staff in recent years, to the point that they are overrepresented by black people, Latinos and Asians on their payrolls compared to the demographics of their states.

Still, they are the two with groups of employees whiter than the Democratic Party. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focused on boosting African-Americans' socioeconomic status and civic engagement, 41 percent of registered Democrats identify as people of color.

By that measure, Michael Bennet of Colorado (at 42 percent) and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (46 percent) have come closest to assembling staffs that mirror the overall racial diversity of their party.

But Gillibrand has seen the number of black people on her staff drop in half over the past two years — to 11 percent of the roster (including her chief of staff, however) while they account for one in five members of the party nationwide.

The staffs of Klobuchar, Sanders and Bennet have smaller percentages of black people than the party overall, but in all three cases the percentages are higher than the black share of their states' populations.

Almost a quarter of Elizabeth Warren's staff is black, a much higher percentage than all the others except Booker and Harris.

At the same time, however, at a time when one in eight Democrats nationally identifies as Hispanic, Warren and Klobuchar are then only senators in the field with a smaller share of Latinos on their staffs than 12 percent. (The Minnesotan's staff is 4 percent Latino, half what it was two years ago.)

While his staff is the Senate's third most diverse, Booker is the only one of the seven with a staff that does not have a strong overrepresentation of Asian-Americans. (English-speaking members of this group are 3 percent of registered Democrats, the Pew Research Center says.)

The raw numbers for each office were not revealed in the study, and the number of staffers each senator may employ in these "personal" offices — not the aides they hire for committees or leadership jobs — varies considerably based on their number of constituents. Harris, for example, gets to hire many more people to serve California than Sanders gets to handle the needs of Vermont.

Read More

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less