Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

GOP Settles on Tough Test for Hate Speech

The sullying of civil discourse remains one of the most gratingly persistent reminders of our degraded democracy, and now Republicans in Washington are ready to set a floor on how low one of their own can go.

It's a pretty tough barrier to break through. First off, the offender must be a public official who's already on the fringes of the GOP, who engenders minimal fear or goodwill among colleagues and has almost no power to shape conservative policy or steer debate.

Plus, he must have been known for incendiary and often racist rhetoric for at least a decade – without engendering hardly a word of colleagues' criticism – before coming up with a comment that outdoes all his others.


And he must do so just when his bosses in the House are confronting two years out of power, and realizing that a strategy of ignoring the electorate's growing diversity is not a viable long-term strategy.

In other words, this high-bar tolerance test was tailor-made for the ostracizing of Steve King, an already peripheral player in the congressional Republican ranks who's been saying things offensive to African-Americans, Muslims, gays and lesbians, and especially Latinos since soon after he was arrived to represent northwestern Iowa in the House in 2003.

But he has never been sanctioned by his colleague until now, with the House GOP leadership kicking him off all three of his committees (Judiciary, Agriculture and Small Business) and several senior GOP senators urging his resignation after King publicly questioned why the terms "white nationalist, white supremacist" were considered offensive.

There is almost no chance this week's sanctioning of King will be a harbinger of a tougher line toward more prominent members of the party. In fact, making an example of a single congressman may even offer the party some short-term cover as it continues its collective enabling of the incendiary speaker-in-chief.

President Donald Trump, in fact, has not said anything critical of King, who has been a loyal ally on almost all fronts and has been especially enthusiastic about Trump's border wall and other hard-line immigration policies.

The new minority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, moved to sideline King by saying his most recent statements, to the New York Times, did not reflect the values of "the party of Lincoln and it's definitely not American." But he did not articulate why this was a tipping point and why the party did not sanction King after any of his earlier comments – such as the first headline-grabber, when he said in 2006 that people crossing the border illegally should be treated like wayward livestock and electrocuted until they turn back south.

King won his ninth term in November by just 3 percentage points, his narrowest victory ever, after reports that he met with a far-right Austrian group founded by a former Nazi officer following a trip funded by a Holocaust remembrance group.


Read More

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less