Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisanship outweighs even the most basic Washington traditions

Centrist House Democrats on Wednesday spurned invitations to the White House for a second consecutive day, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for delaying the State of the Union speech until the government is reopened.

The new House majority's twinned moves to create symbolic distance from President Donald Trump also reinforce this plain reality: The government is so riven by partisan antagonism that basic Washington behavioral norms are getting yet another downgrade.


Longstanding etiquette dictates that members of Congress decline an invitation to meet with the president – especially if any sense that deliberating policy differences is in the offing – only if gravely ill or away from Washington. And, without fail for more than a century, presidents have been welcomed at the Capitol to give an annual address.

And yet both veneers of at-least-ceremonial bipartisanship are getting new cracks. While seven Democratic members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus joined moderate Republicans at the West Wing on Wednesday, at least that many Democrats in the group stayed away. The day before, a handful of Democratic lawmakers from the moderate Blue Dog Coalition did not show up for their scheduled lunch with the president.

As the Problem Solvers prepared to meet Trump in the Situation Room, top House Democrats came close to outright rescinding their invitation to deliver his State of the Union in the House chamber Jan. 29. Pelosi, who as speaker is responsible for arranging such joint sessions of Congress, sent Trump a letter lamenting how security forces have been stretched thin by the partial government shutdown, now in its record 26 th day, and asked him to send his message in writing (the practice of the 19 th century) or delay the speech until after the impasse is resolved. But Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the president should read the message as "the State of the Union is off" because "we're not going to have business as usual as long as the government is shut down."

Steering Trump away from taking a podium that looms over lawmakers, of course, also prevents him from using primetime television to admonish those who would not include $5.7 billion for hundreds of miles of border wall in the legislation to revive funding for a quarter of the government.

The House Democrats who agreed to meet with Trump issued a statement beforehand signaling they did not want to be used as presidential props for a photo op. "The possibility exists to work together and find common ground to tackle some of our country's type of problems and fix them," they said. "But that conversation can only begin in earnest once the government is reopened. We accepted the White House invitation to meet today to convey that message."

Three of the group were freshmen from Trump-friendly districts who voted against returning Pelosi to the speakership: Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and New Yorkers Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose. The others were Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Thomas Suozzi of New York, Vincente Gonzalez of Texas and Dean Phillips of Minnesota.

The Blue Dog Democrats known to have turned down the president's invitation Tuesday were Spanberger, Luis Correa of California and Floridians Stephanie Murphy and Charlie Crist.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less