#ushouseofrepresentatives — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/people/87856/ Trump redistricting push suffers twin setbacks #Alabama #CongressionalDistricts #DonaldTrump #MidtermElections #POTUS #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #RepublicanEffort #Republicans #SouthCarolina #UsHouseOfRepresentatives

https://www.europesays.com/people/84115/ How NY Democrats STARTED the nationwide gerrymandering race #ChuckSchumer #democrats #editorial #gerrymandering #HakeemJeffries #KathyHochul #legislature #NewYork #NicoleMalliotakis #opinion #UsHouseOfRepresentatives

Senate confirms Billy Long as U.S. ambassador to Iceland https://www.byteseu.com/2046026/ #BillyLong #Iceland #irs #PresidentTrump #SouthwestMissouri #topstories #topstories1 #topstories2 #USHouseOfRepresentatives #USSenate

https://www.europesays.com/people/82947/ Republicans Delay Vote on Measure Seeking to End Trump’s Iran War #MikeJohnson #USHouseOfRepresentatives #USRepublicanParty

https://www.europesays.com/people/82213/ ‘They Were Afraid It Would Pass’: House GOP Cancels Iran War Powers Vote for Second Straight Day #IranWar #MikeJohnson #RepublicanParty #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #WarPowersResolution

House Republicans slam troop reductions in Poland – a country Hegseth praised as ‘model ally’

House Republicans fumed Friday after the Pentagon scrapped a deployment of 4,000 US troops to Poland – a…
#UnitedStates #US #USA #congress #DonaldTrump #Død #Europe #Nationalsecurity #pentagon #petehegseth #poland #Politics #SecretaryofDefense #ThePentagon #ushouseofrepresentatives #USnews
https://www.europesays.com/2993397/

https://www.europesays.com/people/73078/ House Republicans slam troop reductions in Poland – a country Hegseth praised as ‘model ally’ #Congress #DonaldTrump #europe #NationalSecurity #PeteHegseth #Poland #Politics #ThePentagon #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #USNews

House Republicans slam troop reductions in Poland – a country Hegseth praised as ‘model ally’

House Republicans fumed Friday after the Pentagon scrapped a deployment of 4,000 US troops to Poland – a…
#Poland #Polska #PL #Europe #Europa #EU #Congress #DonaldTrump #europe #NationalSecurity #PeteHegseth #Politics #ThePentagon #ushouseofrepresentatives #USNews
https://www.europesays.com/poland/6965/

https://www.europesays.com/people/71999/ Trump says ‘decimation’ of Iran’s army ‘to be continued’ after he and China’s Xi discuss Hormuz #2026USIsraelWarWithIran #POTUS #PresidentDonaldTrump #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #PresidentTrump #StraitOfHormuz #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #XiJinping

https://www.europesays.com/iran/114758/ Trump says ‘decimation’ of Iran’s army ‘to be continued’ after he and China’s Xi discuss Hormuz #2026USIsraelWarWithIran #Iran #StraitOfHormuz #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #XiJinping

https://www.europesays.com/people/68675/ Hakeem Jeffries Rips Jen Kiggans For Not Condemning ‘Cotton Picking’ Remark About Him #HakeemJeffries #JenKiggans #USHouseOfRepresentatives #Virginia

https://www.europesays.com/people/67118/ Alabama Map Shake-Up: SCOTUS Move Hands GOP Fresh Edge In House Battle #Alabama #CongressionalDistricts #JusticeSoniaSotomayor #MidtermElections #MikeJohnson #SupremeCourt #USHouseOfRepresentatives #VotingRightsAct

Jack Schlossberg opposes military support for Israel

Manhattan congressional candidate Jack Schlossberg says he supports the effort to block arms sales to Israel and claims…
#Israel #News #Democrats #Iran #jackschlossberg #jerroldnadler #johnfkennedy #manhattan #Métro #MidtermElections(2026) #OperationEpicFury #Politics #ushouseofrepresentatives #USnews
https://www.europesays.com/2979997/

https://www.europesays.com/iran/107207/ Jack Schlossberg opposes military support for Israel #Democrats #Iran #Israel #JackSchlossberg #JerroldNadler #JohnFKennedy #Manhattan #Metro #MidtermElections(2026) #OperationEpicFury #Politics #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #UsNews

https://www.europesays.com/people/60412/ From ‘THUG’ to ‘low IQ,’ Trump escalates personal and racist attacks against Rep. Hakeem Jeffries #AntjuanSeawright #BlackVoters #CongressmanJeffries #DemocraticLeader #DonaldTrump #HakeemJeffries #Republicans #SupremeCourt #USHouseOfRepresentatives

https://www.europesays.com/people/57218/ Democrats eye New York redistricting after Supreme Court decision #CongressionalDistricts #CongressionalSeats #ElectoralMaps #HakeemJeffries #StateOfNewYork #SupremeCourt #USHouseOfRepresentatives

House budget honcho slams NewYork-Presbyterian ‘rural’ hospital designation

He’s calling it a certified country crock! A top House Republican railed over NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital being classified as…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Healthcare #federalbudget #governmentspending #Health #Metro #newyorkpresbyterianhospital #patients #PublicHealth #spending #USHouseofRepresentatives #USNews
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/622248/

House budget honcho slams NewYork-Presbyterian ‘rural’ hospital designation

He’s calling it a certified country crock! A top House Republican railed over NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital being classified as…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Healthcare #federalbudget #governmentspending #Health #Metro #newyorkpresbyterianhospital #patients #PublicHealth #spending #USHouseofRepresentatives #USNews
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/622248/

https://www.europesays.com/people/55596/ House adopts blueprint to fund ICE on day 74 of DHS shutdown after dramatic 5 hour struggle #Congress #DepartmentOfHomelandSecurity #GovernmentShutdown #ICE #MikeJohnson #Politics #Republicans #UsCustomsAndBorderProtection #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #USNews

https://www.europesays.com/people/51619/ House approves bill to fund DHS after warnings of the TSA running out of funds, but leaves out ICE #DepartmentOfHomelandSecurity #deportation #Immigration #MikeJohnson #TSA #USHouseOfRepresentatives #USSenate

https://www.europesays.com/news/22664/ ‘Dangerous and Shameful’: 42 House Democrats Help GOP Send Trump Spying Bill to Senate #CenterForDemocracyTechnolog #DemandProgress #ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanc #Headlines #MassSurveillance #News #Section702 #TopStories #UsHouseOfRepresentatives

https://www.europesays.com/people/48531/ Rep. Hakeem Jeffries claps back at Trump press secretary, who blamed WHCD shooting on Democrats #DemocratParty #DemocraticLeader #DonaldTrump #HakeemJeffries #JoshShapiro #KarolineLeavitt #PressBriefing #SenatorElizabethWarren #USHouseOfRepresentatives #WhiteHouse

https://www.europesays.com/people/40686/ Key Democrats Under Pressure to Reject House GOP’s New 3-Year FISA Extension #DemandProgress #MassSurveillance #MikeJohnson #Privacy #Section702 #UsHouseOfRepresentatives

https://www.europesays.com/people/937/ New York City will always be the greatest — but scaffolding is a misery that nails me down #DemocraticParty #easter #NewYorkCity #opinion #passover #scaffolding #UsHouseOfRepresentatives #ZohranMamdani

https://www.europesays.com/news/10267/ DHS funding live updates as Senate-approved bill faces headwinds in the House #GovernmentShutdown #Headlines #News #TopStories #USHouseOfRepresentatives #UnitedStatesDepartmentOfHomelandSecurity #UnitedStatesSenate

Congressional Republicans advance federal ‘don’t say trans’ school bill

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/trans-identity-education-ban

Congressional Republicans advance federal ‘don’t say trans’ school bill

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/trans-identity-education-ban

Congressional Republicans advance federal ‘don’t say trans’ school bill

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/trans-identity-education-ban

Congressional Republicans advance federal ‘don’t say trans’ school bill

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/trans-identity-education-ban

Congressional Republicans advance federal ‘don’t say trans’ school bill

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/trans-identity-education-ban

https://www.europesays.com/news/6277/ Crockett confirms security member died in Dallas police standoff #Dallas #Headlines #JasmineFeliciaCrockett #News #TopStories #USHouseOfRepresentatives #WellCHomepage

This Georgia education champion could be the first Black out gay man to represent the South in Congress

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/everton-blair-georgia-congress

https://www.europesays.com/ie/356548/ Trump Takes Credit For Biden-Era $1,000 Match For Low-Income Retirement Plans #AmericanWorkers #BarronTrump #Business #DonaldTrump #Éire #FederalWorker #IE #Ireland #JoeBiden #JointSessionOfCongress #PersonalFinance #PersonalFinance #Retirement #RetirementPlan #USHouseOfRepresentatives

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/27/representative-marie-glusenkamp-perez-washington-vancouver-politics/ #ICE #appropriations #funding #government #ushouseofrepresentatives #democrats #republicans #DINO #politics #uspol #uspolitics #Activism #resist #protest #politicalviolence #violence #vandalism #traitor #law

Democrats push for commission investigating anti-LGBTQ+ military policies

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/commission-investigate-anti-lgbtq-policies

Trump’s Investigator Breaks His Silence – The New York Times

https://open.spotify.com/episode/40B6pujzxOqMK3Ap35pKzc?si=3a645e6425e34190

Jan. 23, 2026, 6:00 a.m. ET

Hosted by Michael Barbaro, Featuring Glenn Thrush, Produced by Alex SternStella TanMary Wilson and Mooj Zadie, Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist. Contains music by Rowan NiemistoDan Powell and Pat McCusker. Engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

Three years after his appointment as special counsel, Jack Smith finally delivered the legal argument against President Trump on Thursday that he was never allowed to make in court.

Glenn Thrush, who reports on the Justice Department, explains what Mr. Smith told Congress and why his message is likely to make him Mr. Trump’s next target.

On Today’s Episode

By Glenn Thrush, who reports on the Justice Department for The New York Times.

Background Reading

• In his testimony, Jack Smith defended the decision to prosecute Mr. Trump.
• Here are four takeaways from what he said to a House committee.

Listen to and Follow ‘The Daily’

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadio

Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Feedback

Tune in, and tell us what you think at [email protected]. For corrections, email: [email protected]. Follow our hosts on X: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb, Rachel Abrams @RachelAbramsNY and Natalie Kitroeff @Nataliekitro

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s Investigator Breaks His Silence – The New York Times

Trump’s Investigator Breaks His Silence – The New York Times

https://open.spotify.com/episode/40B6pujzxOqMK3Ap35pKzc?si=3a645e6425e34190

Jan. 23, 2026, 6:00 a.m. ET

Hosted by Michael Barbaro, Featuring Glenn Thrush, Produced by Alex SternStella TanMary Wilson and Mooj Zadie, Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist. Contains music by Rowan NiemistoDan Powell and Pat McCusker. Engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

Three years after his appointment as special counsel, Jack Smith finally delivered the legal argument against President Trump on Thursday that he was never allowed to make in court.

Glenn Thrush, who reports on the Justice Department, explains what Mr. Smith told Congress and why his message is likely to make him Mr. Trump’s next target.

On Today’s Episode

By Glenn Thrush, who reports on the Justice Department for The New York Times.

Background Reading

• In his testimony, Jack Smith defended the decision to prosecute Mr. Trump.
• Here are four takeaways from what he said to a House committee.

Listen to and Follow ‘The Daily’

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadio

Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Feedback

Tune in, and tell us what you think at [email protected]. For corrections, email: [email protected]. Follow our hosts on X: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb, Rachel Abrams @RachelAbramsNY and Natalie Kitroeff @Nataliekitro

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s Investigator Breaks His Silence – The New York Times

Jack Smith testifies in House over Trump investigations – NPR

Law – Jack Smith defends Trump investigations to House Republicans

Updated January 22, 20263:06 PM ET, Heard on Morning Edition

By Carrie Johnson, 2-Minute Listen, Transcript

Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to secure two criminal indictments against President Trump and asserted his team had gathered enough evidence to convict.

Smith gave his first public testimony about his work Thursday, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Republican members of the panel attacked Smith’s move to collect phone records of lawmakers who had been in contact with Trump allies around the time of the Capitol riot in 2021. And they cast the historic investigations of Trump as politically motivated.

“It was always about politics and to get President Trump. They were willing to do almost anything,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the panel’s chairman.

“I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties,” Smith responded. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”

Neither of Smith’s cases reached a jury before Trump won the 2024 election and returned to the White House last year.

Law – Jack Smith defends his prosecutions of Trump in closed-door session in Congress

In a videotaped deposition, Smith said the president had only himself to blame, for charges he tried to overturn the will of voters in 2020.

“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy,” Smith said in the deposition, which congressional Republicans released on New Year’s Eve. “These crimes were committed for his benefit.”

Smith said the violent attack at the U.S. Capitol, which injured 140 law enforcement officers, would not have happened, except for Trump. He said he could not understand the president’s mass pardon of members of the Capitol mob on Trump’s first day in office and predicted many of them would commit new crimes in the years ahead.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith testifies in House over Trump investigations : NPR

Jack Smith testifies in House over Trump investigations – NPR

Law – Jack Smith defends Trump investigations to House Republicans

Updated January 22, 20263:06 PM ET, Heard on Morning Edition

By Carrie Johnson, 2-Minute Listen, Transcript

Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to secure two criminal indictments against President Trump and asserted his team had gathered enough evidence to convict.

Smith gave his first public testimony about his work Thursday, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Republican members of the panel attacked Smith’s move to collect phone records of lawmakers who had been in contact with Trump allies around the time of the Capitol riot in 2021. And they cast the historic investigations of Trump as politically motivated.

“It was always about politics and to get President Trump. They were willing to do almost anything,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the panel’s chairman.

“I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties,” Smith responded. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”

Neither of Smith’s cases reached a jury before Trump won the 2024 election and returned to the White House last year.

Law – Jack Smith defends his prosecutions of Trump in closed-door session in Congress

In a videotaped deposition, Smith said the president had only himself to blame, for charges he tried to overturn the will of voters in 2020.

“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy,” Smith said in the deposition, which congressional Republicans released on New Year’s Eve. “These crimes were committed for his benefit.”

Smith said the violent attack at the U.S. Capitol, which injured 140 law enforcement officers, would not have happened, except for Trump. He said he could not understand the president’s mass pardon of members of the Capitol mob on Trump’s first day in office and predicted many of them would commit new crimes in the years ahead.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith testifies in House over Trump investigations : NPR

All anti-transgender provisions stripped from House and Senate funding bills

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/anti-transgender-provisions-stripped

Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself – GovTrack.us

govtrack.us

Tracking Congress & the White House, Congress, White House, Help, About Us

Analysis and Commentary Jan. 14, 2026: Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself »

1. News From Us
2. Analysis and Commentary

Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself

Get Analysis and Commentary Updates In Your Inbox!

Jan. 14, 2026 · by Amy West and Joshua Tauberer

If you’ve watched Law & Order, you know the stories are each divided between the police investigation and the district attorney’s prosecution. Well, for legislators in the House of Representatives, it’s more the police on one hand and the House Committee on Ethics (HCE) on the other. Dun dun.

A bipartisan committee, but politics in practice

Law enforcement, both local and federal, investigate alleged violations of the law. The HCE investigates violations of House Rules. Some things are violations of both laws and House Rules so a representative might get investigated both by law enforcement and HCE. For example, Rep. Cuellar was indicted by federal prosecutors in 2024 for allegedly accepting bribes. The HCE also opened an investigation. Last year he was pardoned by President Trump. So is he free of all concerns now? Probably, but not necessarily. While the legal case is over, the HCE can still investigate the allegations of bribery and censure, and even recommend to expel him, because bribery is also against House Rules.

How did this dual structure come to be?

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution says

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Only expulsion has any detail to it and that’s that it requires a 2/3rd majority. Otherwise, the House has a range of punishments that have evolved over time to include censure – where not only does a majority vote to agree to a resolution of censure, but the censured member has to come down into the well of the House Floor while the resolution is read – but also reprimand/disapproval in which a majority of the House votes to agree to a resolution of reprimand/disapproval (but the member isn’t called down front to be shamed) and then a range of lesser public indications of “this was bad behavior”.

Until a standing committee to handle ethical or criminal allegations was created in the 1960s, reviews of and votes on censures or reprimands were handled by the whole House. With the establishment of the House Committee on Ethics (HCE), concerns were moved to the small group to investigate and then recommend action to the House as a whole. The HCE has an equal number of members from both the majority and minority parties in the House with the chair coming from the majority party. Most actions require a majority vote, or in other words, require members from both parties to vote in favor of them. In theory, this keeps the HCE from being purely a vehicle for political punishment. Again, in theory.

In 2008, the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC, originally the Office of Congressional Ethics) was established as an independent and non-partisan office, staffed by career civil servants rather than elected politicians, to handle allegations of misconduct and then make recommendations to the HCE on how or whether to proceed.

Why was the OCC created? Because of the pervasive belief that investigations of legislators were based solely on political goals despite its attempt to avoid this problem in its design. In theory then, an allegation would come to the OCC, they’d investigate to see if there was anything to it and, if so, recommend that HCE use their work to decide how to proceed.

There’s just one problem: all ethics investigations are political because Congress is an inherently political body.

There’s never a case when choosing to investigate a specific legislator’s actions, where the member is in either the majority or minority, won’t have political ramifications. So, when a legislator under investigation complains that they’re being attacked for politics, they’re not wrong, but it’s also not necessarily exculpatory because they may have indeed also broken laws or violated House rules.

Take the recent example of former Rep. George Santos. As soon as he won his election, stories began to appear in the press indicating that he had lied outrageously about a wide range of things in order to get elected. It soon became clear there was evidence that he had also committed a number of criminal campaign finance violations. As a result, there was a lot of pressure within the House to expel him. But, at that time, the Republicans held a very narrow majority in Congress. So as much as he could creditably be said to bring disrepute on the House just by being there and there were vocal objections to his presence from members of his own party, there was a political problem for the Republicans because they needed every vote they could get. Do they let the criminal process play out and keep him as a voting member? Or do they acknowledge his many violations of House rules in addition to criminal codes and take the high road? After nearly a year in Congress, the House chose to expel Santos. He was subsequently tried, convicted, served a few months in prison and then released when President Trump commuted his sentence. This was an unusually obvious case of unethical behavior and even so, political considerations were never not part of the equation.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself – GovTrack.us

Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself – GovTrack.us

govtrack.us

Tracking Congress & the White House, Congress, White House, Help, About Us

Analysis and Commentary Jan. 14, 2026: Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself »

1. News From Us
2. Analysis and Commentary

Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself

Get Analysis and Commentary Updates In Your Inbox!

Jan. 14, 2026 · by Amy West and Joshua Tauberer

If you’ve watched Law & Order, you know the stories are each divided between the police investigation and the district attorney’s prosecution. Well, for legislators in the House of Representatives, it’s more the police on one hand and the House Committee on Ethics (HCE) on the other. Dun dun.

A bipartisan committee, but politics in practice

Law enforcement, both local and federal, investigate alleged violations of the law. The HCE investigates violations of House Rules. Some things are violations of both laws and House Rules so a representative might get investigated both by law enforcement and HCE. For example, Rep. Cuellar was indicted by federal prosecutors in 2024 for allegedly accepting bribes. The HCE also opened an investigation. Last year he was pardoned by President Trump. So is he free of all concerns now? Probably, but not necessarily. While the legal case is over, the HCE can still investigate the allegations of bribery and censure, and even recommend to expel him, because bribery is also against House Rules.

How did this dual structure come to be?

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution says

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Only expulsion has any detail to it and that’s that it requires a 2/3rd majority. Otherwise, the House has a range of punishments that have evolved over time to include censure – where not only does a majority vote to agree to a resolution of censure, but the censured member has to come down into the well of the House Floor while the resolution is read – but also reprimand/disapproval in which a majority of the House votes to agree to a resolution of reprimand/disapproval (but the member isn’t called down front to be shamed) and then a range of lesser public indications of “this was bad behavior”.

Until a standing committee to handle ethical or criminal allegations was created in the 1960s, reviews of and votes on censures or reprimands were handled by the whole House. With the establishment of the House Committee on Ethics (HCE), concerns were moved to the small group to investigate and then recommend action to the House as a whole. The HCE has an equal number of members from both the majority and minority parties in the House with the chair coming from the majority party. Most actions require a majority vote, or in other words, require members from both parties to vote in favor of them. In theory, this keeps the HCE from being purely a vehicle for political punishment. Again, in theory.

In 2008, the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC, originally the Office of Congressional Ethics) was established as an independent and non-partisan office, staffed by career civil servants rather than elected politicians, to handle allegations of misconduct and then make recommendations to the HCE on how or whether to proceed.

Why was the OCC created? Because of the pervasive belief that investigations of legislators were based solely on political goals despite its attempt to avoid this problem in its design. In theory then, an allegation would come to the OCC, they’d investigate to see if there was anything to it and, if so, recommend that HCE use their work to decide how to proceed.

There’s just one problem: all ethics investigations are political because Congress is an inherently political body.

There’s never a case when choosing to investigate a specific legislator’s actions, where the member is in either the majority or minority, won’t have political ramifications. So, when a legislator under investigation complains that they’re being attacked for politics, they’re not wrong, but it’s also not necessarily exculpatory because they may have indeed also broken laws or violated House rules.

Take the recent example of former Rep. George Santos. As soon as he won his election, stories began to appear in the press indicating that he had lied outrageously about a wide range of things in order to get elected. It soon became clear there was evidence that he had also committed a number of criminal campaign finance violations. As a result, there was a lot of pressure within the House to expel him. But, at that time, the Republicans held a very narrow majority in Congress. So as much as he could creditably be said to bring disrepute on the House just by being there and there were vocal objections to his presence from members of his own party, there was a political problem for the Republicans because they needed every vote they could get. Do they let the criminal process play out and keep him as a voting member? Or do they acknowledge his many violations of House rules in addition to criminal codes and take the high road? After nearly a year in Congress, the House chose to expel Santos. He was subsequently tried, convicted, served a few months in prison and then released when President Trump commuted his sentence. This was an unusually obvious case of unethical behavior and even so, political considerations were never not part of the equation.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Censure and How the House of Representatives Polices itself – GovTrack.us

A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress – NPR

Politics

A Supreme Court ruling could bring historic drop in Black representation in Congress

January 8, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

By Hansi Lo Wang

The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.

For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.

That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress : NPR

A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress – NPR

Politics

A Supreme Court ruling could bring historic drop in Black representation in Congress

January 8, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

By Hansi Lo Wang

The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.

For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.

That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress : NPR

A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress – NPR

Politics

A Supreme Court ruling could bring historic drop in Black representation in Congress

January 8, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

By Hansi Lo Wang

The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.

For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.

That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress : NPR

A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress – NPR

Politics

A Supreme Court ruling could bring historic drop in Black representation in Congress

January 8, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

By Hansi Lo Wang

The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.

For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.

That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress : NPR

A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress – NPR

Politics

A Supreme Court ruling could bring historic drop in Black representation in Congress

January 8, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

By Hansi Lo Wang

The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.

For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.

That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.

But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A court ruling could shrink Black representation in Congress : NPR

Trump admin: Dietary guideline changes, Greenland, more

Stay up to date with live coverage of the Trump administration and national politics Wednesday as the White…
#UnitedStates #US #USA #Capitolriot #DonaldTrump #LiveBlogs #Politics #Republicans #theWhiteHouse #trump #TrumpAdministration #USCaptureofNicolásMaduro #ushouseofrepresentatives #USnews #Venezuela
https://www.europesays.com/2685937/

In Trump’s Second Year, Congress Weighs How to Reassert Its Power – The New York Times

Congressional Memo

A Diminished Congress Weighs Whether to Reassert Its Power

Lawmakers head into President Trump’s second year facing questions about whether they can reclaim congressional clout in the face of his power grab.

Listen to this article · 7:12 min Learn more

By Carl Hulse, Reporting from Capitol Hill, Jan. 2, 2026

Congress learned some hard lessons about the limits of its power during the first year of the second Trump administration, when Republican leaders in both chambers largely declined to check a president unconstrained by law or custom.

President Trump barreled ahead with scant deference to the House and Senate. He abruptly changed the statutory name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, summarily withheld funds from congressional priorities, claimed broad tariff power that the Constitution invests in Congress, and launched military attacks off South America without authorization from the legislative branch.

Now, with midterm elections that will decide control of Congress less than a year off and with lawmakers hearing from anxious constituents about high prices and economic distress, Congress must decide whether to try to assert itself more and reclaim some of the power it has ceded to the president, or to continue to accept a shrinking role and diminished status.

“The president would be better off if the Republican House pushed back more,” said Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican who has sometimes opposed Mr. Trump’s policies and approach. “I think his tariff policy would be better. I think it would be better on Ukraine. I think we could push him in a much better direction if he was open to it.”

“But,” added Mr. Bacon, who has opted not to seek re-election, “if you feel like you have a bunch of lackeys that are going to do whatever you say, then he doesn’t feel constrained.”

With both chambers controlled by Republicans loyal to the president, pushback from Capitol Hill has been scattershot and largely ineffective, and oversight virtually nonexistent. Even when some Republicans have been stirred to join Democrats in raising objections to the administration’s legally questionable actions, lawmakers have struggled to get the White House to back off or reverse course.

The president has the ability to move expeditiously; Congress, not so much.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: In Trump’s Second Year, Congress Weighs How to Reassert Its Power – The New York Times

In Trump’s Second Year, Congress Weighs How to Reassert Its Power – The New York Times

Congressional Memo

A Diminished Congress Weighs Whether to Reassert Its Power

Lawmakers head into President Trump’s second year facing questions about whether they can reclaim congressional clout in the face of his power grab.

Listen to this article · 7:12 min Learn more

By Carl Hulse, Reporting from Capitol Hill, Jan. 2, 2026

Congress learned some hard lessons about the limits of its power during the first year of the second Trump administration, when Republican leaders in both chambers largely declined to check a president unconstrained by law or custom.

President Trump barreled ahead with scant deference to the House and Senate. He abruptly changed the statutory name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, summarily withheld funds from congressional priorities, claimed broad tariff power that the Constitution invests in Congress, and launched military attacks off South America without authorization from the legislative branch.

Now, with midterm elections that will decide control of Congress less than a year off and with lawmakers hearing from anxious constituents about high prices and economic distress, Congress must decide whether to try to assert itself more and reclaim some of the power it has ceded to the president, or to continue to accept a shrinking role and diminished status.

“The president would be better off if the Republican House pushed back more,” said Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican who has sometimes opposed Mr. Trump’s policies and approach. “I think his tariff policy would be better. I think it would be better on Ukraine. I think we could push him in a much better direction if he was open to it.”

“But,” added Mr. Bacon, who has opted not to seek re-election, “if you feel like you have a bunch of lackeys that are going to do whatever you say, then he doesn’t feel constrained.”

With both chambers controlled by Republicans loyal to the president, pushback from Capitol Hill has been scattershot and largely ineffective, and oversight virtually nonexistent. Even when some Republicans have been stirred to join Democrats in raising objections to the administration’s legally questionable actions, lawmakers have struggled to get the White House to back off or reverse course.

The president has the ability to move expeditiously; Congress, not so much.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: In Trump’s Second Year, Congress Weighs How to Reassert Its Power – The New York Times