Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Political divisions over Jan. 6 commission fuel dysfunction

Capitol insurrection

Congress is divided over whether to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

The same polarizing politics that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol may also prevent Congress from investigating the attack.

Ahead of the House's vote Wednesday to create an investigative commission, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California voiced his opposition to the bill. But several of his fellow Republicans have broken from the leadership's stance, signaling they would support an independent probe into the unprecedented attempt to subvert American democracy.

The GOP's splintering over the Jan. 6 commission underscores divisions within the party, between those who remain loyal to Donald Trump and those who want the GOP to go in a different direction. And lack of significant support from Republicans on such a critical issue will only perpetuate the dysfunctions within the country's political system.


Co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and GOP Rep. John Katko of New York, the commission would consist of 10 members, evenly appointed by the two parties' leadership in the House and Senate. Modeled after the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this body would have the power to receive evidence and issue subpoenas.

The commission would be required to hold public hearings and submit a final report to Congress and President Biden by the end of the year.

Even after Democrats conceded to McCarthy on a number of points aimed at making the commission more bipartisan and independent, the minority leader formally announced his opposition Tuesday. McCarthy said the scope of the investigation should be broadened to include violent incidents that occurred across the country as a result of racial justice protests.

"Given the political misdirections that have marred this process, given the now duplicative and potentially counterproductive nature of this effort, and given the Speaker's shortsighted scope that does not examine interrelated forms of political violence in America, I cannot support this legislation," McCarthy said in a statement.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi originally proposed Biden would have a say in the committee appointments, but that was rolled back during negotiations. Party leaders also agreed that the Democrat-appointed chair and the Republican-appointed vice chair would need to agree on which witnesses to subpoena. They also agreed to ban current elected officials from serving on the commission in an effort to make the investigation more independent.

While the Jan. 6 commission bill doesn't need Republican votes to pass in the Democrat-majority House, receiving GOP support in that chamber could make it easier for the legislation to obtain the 60 votes needed to pass in the evenly split Senate.

However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell piled onto the GOP opposition Wednesday by announcing he would vote against creating a Jan. 6 commission — a blow to the bill's chances in the Senate.

Failing to receive support from both major parties would be a noteworthy departure from historical precedent. In the cases of Watergate and 9/11, Congress overwhelmingly supported establishing investigative committees.

During a press call Wednesday, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, urged Congress to approve the commission and investigate the Jan. 6 attack. They said "unity of purpose" was key to their commission's effectiveness.

"We put country above party to examine, without bias, the events before, during, and after the attacks," Kean and Hamilton said. "The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol was one of the darkest days in our history. Americans deserve an objective and accurate account of what happened. As we did in the wake of September 11, it is time to set aside partisan politics and come together as Americans in common pursuit of truth and justice."


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