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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less