Think you can recognize what congressional districts look like? Take this quiz to see if you can pick out which pieces were drawn on maps by legislatures and which ones are abstract doodles created by our staff.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
Palestinians gather to celebrate after the announcement of an cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas in Ramallah, West Bank on January 15, 2025.
WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, both U.S. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump took credit for a ceasefire-for-hostages agreement related to the conflict in Gaza. This deal, which had been in the works for several months, received additional support from an envoy associated with Trump, helping to facilitate its completion.
In announcing the ceasefire, Biden noted the final deal largely mirrored the framework of a proposal he made back in May, Reuters reported. He smiled when a reporter asked who the history books will credit for the ceasefire and asked, "Is that a joke?"
In a social media post, Trump promptly asserted that he deserved some credit for the recent breakthrough, which followed months of stalled negotiations. He had previously expressed strong concerns, stating there would be "hell to pay" if a deal wasn't reached before he assumes office on Monday.
"This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies," he said.
Reuters reported that Trump had dispatched his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, to join the negotiations in Doha, and Witkoff was there for the last 96 hours of talks leading up to the deal.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A senior official from the Biden administration, during a briefing with reporters, acknowledged Witkoff's contributions to facilitating the deal, noting his collaboration with Biden's envoy, Brett McGurk, who has been in Doha since January 5.
The cease-fire will be implemented in two phases. The first phase, expected to last approximately six weeks, involves a complete cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas in Gaza, and the release of several hostages held by Hamas, including women, the elderly, and the wounded.
Israel has also released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, Biden said, and Palestinians "can also return to their neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, and a surge of humanitarian assistance into Gaza will begin." The second phase of the cease-fire will begin after Israel negotiates "the necessary arrangements," which Biden said would mark "a permanent end of the war,” Fox News reported.
Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, told the Associated Press that Biden deserves praise for continuing to push the talks despite repeated failures. But Trump’s threats to Hamas and his efforts through Witkoff to “cajole” Netanyahu deserve credit as well, he said.
“The ironic reality is that at a time of heightened partisanship even over foreign policy, the deal represents how much more powerful and influential U.S. foreign policy can be when it’s bipartisan,” he said. “Both the outgoing and incoming administration deserve credit for this deal, and it would’ve been far less likely to happen without both pushing for it.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog expressed his appreciation to both the incoming and outgoing U.S. presidents.
According to a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations, the agreement implementation could start on Sunday, when the first group of hostages might be released.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., is seen in the Fiserv Forum on the second day of Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wis., on Tuesday, July 16, 2024.
Today we bring you the next in our series on current and former members of Congress nominated to a cabinet post by President-elect Trump. This story was originally published by Govtrack.us
The Senate will vote on Trump’s nominees once they are formally nominated after he takes office, but senators have already begun meeting with the expected nominees. They may also hold hearings ahead of Trump’s inauguration, to expedite the confirmation process.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY1) is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to replace Michael Regan as EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) administrator. The position requires confirmation by the Senate.
Zeldin served in the House from 2015 to 2023, when he declined to run for reelection to focus on his Republican nomination for New York governor, which he lost in an election that was much closer than expected.
Both Republicans and Democrats alike describe Zeldin’s expected nomination as about rolling back environmental protections to support big business.
During his eight years in Congress, he was lead sponsor of 84 bills. By GovTrack’s count, by far his most common primary issue area was “Armed Forces and National Security” at 24%. Zero were primarily related to the category “environmental protection.”
That’s because Zeldin is generally opposed to environmental protection. Indeed, he introduced at least two bills that would kill more fish.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
2017’s Local Fishing Access Act would have allowed striped bass fishing in an area called the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) by his New York district. 2015’s Fluke Fairness Act would have allowed fishers in his district to catch more fluke fish, also known as summer flounders, as New York state’s commercial sector only reeled in less than 10% of its estimated potential fluke haul. Neither bill passed.
The League of Conservation Voters gave him a lifetime 14% score. Of the 235 votes the organization marked as important environmental votes during his tenure, he cast what they deemed a “pro-environment” vote in 32.
However, those 32 votes included several where Zeldin was one of the only House Republicans doing so. Here are three examples.
Zeldin’s 2019 vote would have banned offshore drilling off both the Atlantic and Pacific U.S. coasts.
House Democrats almost unanimously supported it by 226-5, while House Republicans almost entirely opposed it by 12-183, making Zeldin one of only a dozen members of his party to vote in favor.
The Senate never voted on the measure.
In 2019, Zeldin voted against blocking the EPA’s implementation of new tougher standards on carbon pollution.
House Democrats voted almost unanimously in opposition by 1-233, with only Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN7) in favor. House Republicans almost entirely supported it by 177-21, making Zeldin one of less than two dozen members of his party to vote against. Due largely to Democrats, the measure failed, meaning the EPA’s rule stood.
(Interestingly, one of the few other Republican dissenters was former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s original nominee for Attorney General before dropping out, and hardly known as an environmentalist.)
Zeldin’s 2019 vote would have banned the shark fin animal parts used as a delicacy in some food items such as soups.
House Democrats almost unanimously supported it by 221-2, while House Republicans opposed it by 89-104 – pitting Zeldin against most members of his party. Though the House passed the measure, it never received a Senate vote in that Congress.
Congress ultimately enacted it three years later as a provision in the 1,772-page annual National Defense Authorization Act for 2022. Though that package passed the House overwhelmingly by both parties, Zeldin didn’t cast a vote.
“President Trump has made a strong choice in selecting [Zeldin] to lead the [EPA],” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee top Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said in a statement. “I look forward to promptly considering Rep. Zeldin’s nomination in the [committee] and to working with him to roll back regulatory overreach and unleash American energy production.”
“Donald Trump has chosen to reward a 2020 election denier, whose only job will be to reward corporate polluters by gutting the EPA and making our air and water dirtier,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) posted on X, formerly Twitter. “In Congress and the courts, we’ve got a fight ahead.”
In 2019, no Senate Democrats voted for Trump’s last EPA Administrator nominee Andrew Wheeler, though he was confirmed in the Republican-led chamber anyway. A similar outcome seems likely here.Jess Rifkin's writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
A helicopter view of Tasiilaq East Greenland.
As Donald Trump prepares to retake the presidency, his rhetoric is increasingly centered on reviving American expansionism. He wants the United States to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal, has called Canada “the 51st state,” threatened Mexico with military incursions, and aims to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.”
On January 7th, Donald Trump Jr. landed in Greenland to shoot video content for digital media, signaling the incoming administration’s interest in the mineral-rich Danish territory. The president-elect wrote on social media, “Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland. The reception has been great. They, and the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”
When asked at a Mar-a-Lago press conference whether he would rule out the use of military forces to take Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump answered, “I’m not going to commit to that.” Trump went on, “it might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country,” and “we need Greenland for national security purposes.” To the territory’s people, who are mostly Indigenous Greenlandic Inuit, Trump had a message: “we’re going to treat you well.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As a historian of U.S. expansionism and the U.S.-Mexico border, I have studied how such ambitions have come at a great cost—to Americans, their neighbors, and Indigenous populations.
In 1845, President James K. Polk embraced a similar vision for territorial expansion. He supported Texas annexation—then controlled by pro-slavery Anglo American settlers that had declared independence from Mexico, which prohibited slavery. Intending to expand the United States, Polk sent U.S. troops across the Nueces River, the historical boundary of Texas, southward towards the Rio Grande. Polk insisted the Rio Grande was the actual boundary between the United States and Mexico. After Mexican troops attacked American troops within territory Mexico considered its own, Polk asserted “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil.” He successfully pressured Congress to declare war. The U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1848) became the United States’ first full-scale invasion of another nation state.
Politicians, journalists, and popular writers justified the war with interventionist propaganda, depicting the United States as a force for enlightenment and economic development. They even framed the United States as protecting Mexican people against Native American hostilities, arguing Mexico had not been able to subdue Indigenous people in its northern territories. In the language of the time, Sen. Robert Walker (D-Miss.) helped set the discourse in 1836, declaring that Anglo Americans were invited to settle in Texas to “defend the Mexicans against the then frequent incursions of a savage foe.”
By land and sea, the United States conquered Mexico and occupied its capital for the better part of a year. But we should not overlook that, for the United States the war resulted in one of the highest casualty rates of any conflict. Of the 79,000 soldiers who served, over 16 percent lost their lives in battle or due to disease. With more than eight percent of soldiers abandoning their posts, the U.S.-Mexico War also had the highest desertion rate of any American conflict.
For Mexico, the war was catastrophic. At least 25,000 Mexican people—mainly civilians—died. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war, Mexico ceded 55 percent of its claimed national territory, what is now the U.S. Southwest and more.
The treaty’s Article XI did stipulate that the United States would prevent Native American raiders from entering Mexico. But guarantees to subdue Indigenous populations and bring peace to Mexican people proved hollow.
After the war, Native American resistance intensified, challenging the United State’s ability to govern its newly claimed lands and borders. On newly American-claimed soil, populations that were now Mexican Americans engaged with Navajos in a cycle of raids and counterraids in New Mexico. In Texas, Comanches and Mexican Americans continued to attack one another. Native Americans also continued southward raids deep into Mexico, freely crossing the new border. The United States could not live up to its promises of peace or its treaty obligations. It could not better the lives of Mexican people or mount sufficient force to subdue Native American populations that fought to maintain their independence.
The United State’s inability to fulfill its treaty obligation revealed the limits of American power. Expansion did not bring stability or prosperity to occupied lands; instead, it often left further chaos.
As Trump seeks to restart American expansion, Americans should grapple with the past. Expansionism often overextends the military and comes at the cost of life for both the occupiers and occupied. As history shows, threatening, or worse, invading Greenland, Panama, Canada, or Mexico risks straining U.S. military capabilities and provoking resistance. The United State’s first invasion of another nation-state plainly demonstrates that American expansionism is a cautionary story from our past. It is up to us to ensure it remains so.
Joel Zapata is an Assistant Professor of History at Oregon State University and a Public Voices Fellow with The Op-Ed Project.
A sunset over Washington D.C.
Hope is the thing with feathers--
That perches in the soul—
And sings the tune without the words--
And never stops—at all. (Dickinson)
Many are apprehensive about the “changing of the guard” on January 20th, Inauguration Day. Many are remembering another January day just over four years ago when the very foundations of our democracy were challenged.
The New Year, often represented by a baby toting a banner proclaiming the year’s start, parades toward a path unknown and yet unmarred. That baby brings an essential ingredient to our concept of time, infuses us with possibility, and generates hope.
Promising, except, for many, this looming unknown, or perhaps, too well-known, is the Presidential Inauguration and new administration.
We are all afflicted to an extent by the dilemma of having had “enough,” when a personal situation, or a worldly one, has us losing hope. But tuning out does not bring any long-term answers. Engaging, reading, and listening to others’ viewpoints helps us to understand, and this information and awareness are the tools to trigger change. Yes, we will find villains, evilness, and injustice, but we will also discover heroes, inspiration, and hope.
Still these feelings of disempowerment often take root in our psyches and our lives, and hope seems in short supply lately. But hope is not situational. Hope is a choice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“For such a time as this.” (Esther: 4:14) Esther of the Old Testament risked her life to step forward and save her people. There was then, and there is now, such a time. Apathy turns to action if the moment is seized, and one moment begats the next. Change happens by the stirring motion of such action.
Hope is believing we can use our lives to shape a better world for ourselves and those we share this planet, and this time, with. This promise that we can do better, and the world can be better, exists in each day, in every moment.
From the waving ribbon of the past toward the future road unknown, this moment, this now, marked, or unmarked, dominates. It is the only time guaranteed, the only true place for empowerment and actuality, the only surety any of us have. There is even a wrist-watch sold displaying this truth about time. It has no numbers, only the word “NOW” printed where each number would be.
The countdown minute into 2025 was really no different than the other “525,600 Minutes” in a year, as the musical “Rent” proclaims in its hit song. Sure, numerical measurements tally the ticking clock, months or weeks of a year, or years of a lifetime. But as the song and our hearts tell us, those are not the true measurements. What then is?
Hope, yes. And as “Rent” proclaims, and as we, and the Beatles, know, love. But the Beatles are not right in “all you need is love.” There is yet another intangible, but critical, element to add: faith.
Is all this hope and love and faith stuff too simplistic a solution, too much spin-off from recent holiday platitudes? More likely, the opposite is true.
Faith in ourselves and each other is the foundation of our hope, faith that if wrong choices are made, we can, and will, right them.
Hope, love, and faith, played out in the “now.” Could be a worthy New Year’s resolution, one to be infused, grow, and live. Or perhaps, more accurately, a resolution for “now.”
How better to fulfill that which Flaubert calls the most crucial aspect of living:
“The principal thing in this world is to keep one’s soul aloft.”
Amy Lockard has a Master’s Degree in English Literature from the University of Northern Iowa (1994) and has continued classes at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She has published several short stories, and poetry.
