Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Anti-Trump conservatives say half of congressional GOP failed to protect democracy

Members of Congress

Sen. Ted Cruz was one of 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election results, which contributed to his failing grade from the Republican Accountability Project.

Bill O'Leary/Getty Images
Sara Swann
By Sara SwannApr 28, 2021
Sara Swann

As a staff writer, Sara covers a variety of democracy reform issues, including voting rights, money in politics, gerrymandering and civic education. Prior to joining The Fulcrum in May 2019, Sara reported on local government on Maryland's Eastern Shore for the USA Today network. She is a native West Virginian and a graduate of Syracuse University.

See More Writings by author

During the 2020 election, the strength of American democracy was put to the test several times. While democracy ultimately prevailed, many Republicans in Congress failed to support it.

The Republican Accountability Project, an anti-Trump conservative group, released a report this week analyzing how GOP members acted during crucial moments as the election results were being certified. More than half the Republicans in Congress received failing grades for their actions.

This report highlights the current divide in the Republican Party between those who still support former President Donald Trump and those who do not.

The report evaluated all 50 Republican senators and 211 GOP House members (excluding Rep. Julia Letlow of Louisiana because she was not in office at the time) based on four criteria:

  • Did they sign on to the amicus brief filed in support of Texas' lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to nullify votes cast in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia?
  • Did they object to the certification of Electoral College votes from at least one state?
  • Did they make public statements that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election?
  • Did they vote to hold Trump accountable via impeachment or conviction?

Only 16 Republicans (seven senators and nine House members) received an A, which the report described as "excellent."

Republican Accountability Project grades for the SenateSource: Republican Accountability Project

Thirteen House members received a B, or an "okay" grade. No senators earned a B.

How Republican House members were graded on democracySource: Republican Accountability Project

Fifty-eight Republicans (30 senators and 28 House members) received a C for "mediocre." This group includes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who is ranking member of the Rules and Administration Committee. Both have been instrumental in blocking democracy reform legislation from advancing in the Senate.Thirty-eight Republicans (five senators and 33 House members) received a D for "poor."

While just eight senators were given an F for "very poor," 60 percent of the House GOP (128 members) received a failing grade.

"Our Capitol was attacked by a mob that believed that the 2020 election was being stolen. They were encouraged by the lies and actions of President Trump and many Republican members of Congress," the report says. "In the name of accountability, it's vitally important we remember which Congressional Republicans stood with democracy and the Constitution, and which did not."


Latest news

Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​
Ethics & Leadership

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

US Flag
Bridging & Common Ground

This Country ’Tis of Thee Calls America to Unite Again

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.
Ethics & Leadership

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

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
© Copyright 2026