Politics
WATCH: FEMA EMPLOYEES RALLY AGAINST SECRETARY NOEM, CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF FEMA ADMINISTRATOR
Public signers of the Katrina Declaration who are employed by the agency were placed on leave one day after it was released in August.
read more
Sen. Merkley delivers overnight speech on shutdown and Trump’s ‘authoritarian takeover’
Sen. Jeff Merkley delivers a marathon floor speech condemning government shutdown and democratic erosion, nearing a record 25 hours as Democrats rally in support.
read more
WATCH: Rallygoers gather as Supreme Court weighs fate of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments for a high-profile Louisiana Congressional redistricting case that could potentially gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits redrawing congressional maps that would...
read more
WATCH: Thousands gather in DC for No Kings Protest
People from all across the country gathered in the nation’s capital this weekend to protest the Trump administration.
read more
In Photos: Faces from the ‘No Kings’ Protest
Over a hundred thousand demonstrators gathered near the National Mall to protest against the Trump administration.
read moreIn Photos: No Kings protesters meet GOP attacks with satire
WASHINGTON — During a press conference decrying the government shutdown on Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) addressed Saturday’s nationwide “No Kings” protest with disapproval.
“We refer to it by its more accurate description, the Hate America Rally,” Johnson said. “And I’m not sure how anybody can refute that.”
Johnson is one of many Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials who preemptively denounced the protest, using extreme language to exaggerate the depravity of their opponents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi pointed to the protest as evidence of an Antifa organization, which she has equated to the MS-13 drug gang.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed these comments Thursday on Fox News.
“The Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals,” Leavitt said.
The reality contrasted starkly with this narrative. On Saturday, large crowds peacefully gathered in protests in more than 2,500 locations across the country. Protesters appeared all too aware of the GOP’s descriptions of them.
Inspired by “Operation Inflation” in Portland, many stepped out in inflatable costumes to satirize the administration’s portrayal of their actions.
“There’s nothing they can’t stand more than being mocked,” said Pete Fitzpatrick, who wore a clown costume. “And what are they going to do? Beat up a clown?”
“I’m second-generation anti-fascist,” said Fitzpatrick, whose father served in the army. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Unicorns were a common sighting on Saturday. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Some protesters in inflatable costumes stuck together throughout the rally. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Megan Sweeney said she loved the “playfulness” and “absurdity” of the protests. “It is a really great counter to the fact that these are violent or extremists,” she said. “This is everyday people who are just fed up with what Donald Trump and his regime has been doing.” (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Many dressed in inflatable costumes had signs that referenced their character. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Protesters used puns to critique the Trump administration. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
A person dressed as a caricatured version of the president did impressions, drawing laughter from the surrounding crowd. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Protesters marched down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the U.S. Capitol building on Saturday. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
LAWMAKERS, EXPERTS CONCERNED ABOUT WHITE HOUSE’S NEW MASS FEDERAL LAYOFFS
WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Trump administration followed through on threats to begin mass firings during the government shutdown. White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought announced on X: “The RIFs have begun.”
The announcement was immediately met with significant backlash. Virginia Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (D-VA) released a joint statement about the layoffs.
“They’re doubling down by laying off federal workers,” Warner and Kaine said. “[They’re] turning their own failure to govern into a direct attack on the people who keep this country running and jeopardizing vital government services.”
Virginia is home to nearly 150,000 civilian federal employees, making it the state with one of the highest numbers of federal workers.
Before the government shutdown began, the OMB had instructed federal agencies to prepare mass reduction-in-force (RIF) plans. According to a memo released by the OMB, the layoffs specifically targeted employees who work for programs that are considered non-essential and are impacted by the shutdown.
Since Friday’s mass firings began, more than 4,000 workers have been laid off across seven federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Education (DOE). Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle responded to the layoffs by emphasizing the harm this could have on federal employees and their families.
“Many of these abrupt terminations will do more harm than good, stunting opportunities in Alaska and leaving holes in our communities,” wrote Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on social media. Murkowski added: “Indiscriminate workforce cuts aren’t efficient and won’t fix the federal budget, but they will hurt good people who have answered the call to public service to do important work for our nation.”
Others have asserted that the firings are not only harmful, but actually illegal. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, referred to the layoffs as an “illegal attempt to fire hardworking public servants.”
Some legal experts agree.
Paul Gowder, a professor of constitutional law at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, believes the firings are unconstitutional. He says the constitutionality issue here is whether the President has to obey the laws of Congress regarding “who can be fired and when.”
“Presidents, particularly the Republican presidents, and super particularly Trump, have been attached for a while now to this theory called the Unitary Executive,” Gowder said. “The idea of this theory is that the executive branch is controlled by one person, and that person is the president, and they have sort of complete authority to decide how to supervise personnel in the executive branch: who to hire, who to fire, and so forth.”
But, Gowder says, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution – the list of Congress’ powers – contains a clause called the Necessary and Proper Clause. This clause explicitly grants Congress the power to make any laws that are “necessary and proper” to “carry into execution” all power vested by the Constitution in the government.
“What that means is that the counter-argument to the unitary executive view is actually that Congress has the authority to decide which officers are protected from firing and which aren’t under what circumstances,” Gowder said. “That’s really what the fight is about.”
At least one court has already agreed: A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from “taking any action to issue any reduction-in-force notices to federal employees […] during or because of the federal government shutdown,” ordering the administration to immediately halt the mass firings. The judge granted the temporary restraining order on the basis that she believed the evidence would ultimately show the cuts were “illegal and in excess of authority.”
As of now, it is unclear whether the mass federal layoffs will ultimately be allowed to continue. Since taking office, more than 200,000 federal employees have been fired or left their jobs.
Photo Essay: Shutdown enters third week, protesters rally in front of Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — Wednesday was a busy day on Capitol Hill, as the government shutdown continued into its 15th day. Republicans and Democrats held news conferences without making any progress toward reopening the government.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held oral arguments for Louisiana v. Callais. The focus of the case was Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Several people protested in front of the Court with signs supporting minority voting rights.
Wednesday marked the beginning of the third week of the government shutdown. Still, Democrats and Republicans remain at an impasse, pointing fingers at each other. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
The night after a protest, lawmakers held a press conference at the House Triangle, calling Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to office. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Photo 3: Johnson enters the room for a news conference held on Wednesday. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that none of the republicans are “taking any pleasure” in the government shutdown and that it would be “no good” to pass another Continuing Resolution. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) answers questions from the press following the conference. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and members of the democratic Caucus gather on the east steps of the Capitol. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Before questioning Rep. Nancy Pelosi on the Jan. 6 insurrection, LindellTV DC Correspondent Alison Steinberg watches the Democratic caucus presser. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Several people gathered in front of the Capitol protesting in support of the Voting Rights Act during the oral arguments of the landmark case, Louisiana vs Callais. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson speaks to protesters following oral arguments of a landmark case. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
One protester holds a sign that says, “Protect People, not power,” while waving an American flag. They were repeatedly saying, “yes” during Janai Nelson’s Remarks. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Supreme Court signals readiness to reshape voting rights protections following oral arguments
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court expressed skepticism of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act during oral arguments Wednesday, setting the stage for a decision that could prompt sweeping redistricting efforts across the country.
The landmark case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from enacting voting rules that have a discriminatory effect on minority groups, regardless of intent.
“This case could throw congressional maps across the country into chaos,” NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson said during oral arguments.
For decades, courts have ordered state legislatures to draw some majority-minority congressional districts to ensure that minority voters — especially Black voters in the South — can elect representatives of their choosing.
On Wednesday, however, the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative bloc indicated they may be prepared to prohibit states from considering race in redistricting by weakening or overturning Section Two.
One mechanism by which the Court could modify this statute is imposing a durational limit, a concept invoked to strike down continuing affirmative action policies in the landmark Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard case two years ago.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could be the deciding vote in this case, raised the prospect of a time limit and questioned whether its implementation should be deferred to Congress.
“This Court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time — decades in some cases — but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point,” Kavanaugh said.
The three liberal justices repeated multiple times that legal precedent is on their side and focused on the successes of the Voting Rights Act in protecting minority groups.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that racial minorities tend to vote together, so many states continue to draw districts with racial considerations.
“Race is a part of redistricting always … And my colleagues are trying to tease it out in this intellectual way that doesn’t deal with the fact that race is used to help people,” Sotomayor said.
In 2022, Louisiana enacted a new congressional map containing six districts. Just one district was majority-Black, even though about 33% of the state’s population was Black, according to census data. A group of Black voters sued, claiming the map violated Section Two by diluting their voting power.
After a district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, the state passed a new map in 2024, drawing a second majority-Black district stretching from Baton Rouge to Shreveport.
The legislature initially supported this map primarily to maintain control in drawing congressional boundaries and prevent a federal court from imposing its own map.
A group of voters describing themselves as “non-African American,” including Phillip Callais, filed a second lawsuit, alleging that the new map was racially gerrymandered. Specifically, they argued that the map violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because race was the primary factor in its new boundaries.
A three-judge panel agreed with Callais, ruling that the new map containing the second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court allowed the state to temporarily use the new map in the 2024 elections.
Upon reargument of the case before the Supreme Court, Louisiana reversed its position, leaving Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund as the sole attorney to defend the existing map.
She argued that Louisiana is “emblematic of the ongoing need for Section Two,” citing legal precedent on eliminating racial discrimination in electoral processes.
Following oral arguments, NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson addressed a group of protesters supporting the new map. (Riddhimaa Kodali/MNS)
In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that race-based redistricting can be required when necessary to remedy a map that dilutes minority voting power.
J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, argued on behalf of the state that the Milligan decision left undecided whether Section Two itself is constitutional.
“The question before the Court is simple but momentous: Can Congress compel a state to engage in racial sorting to avoid liability under Section Two?” Aguiñaga asked. “The answer must be no.”
Prominent liberal and conservative groups have lined up to file competing amicus briefs ahead of the Court’s decision, which is expected to arrive by next summer.
David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Congress has the power to enact laws offering additional protections that go further than the 15th Amendment — an argument that Nelson offered to the court.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group focused on election integrity, filed a brief arguing that Louisiana’s new map used race as a predominant factor and violated the 15th Amendment.
“The lawmakers have openly said that their mission was to create two majority-Black districts,” said Douglas Blair, communications director for the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
Other groups disagreed, countering that the Supreme Court has historically allowed states to consider race to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
“Without Section Two, you’re just going to have a situation where people are going to be able to engage in the performative act of voting — going to the polls, casting a ballot — but the effect of your vote is going to be profoundly diluted if you happen to be Black in certain parts of the country,” said Avner Shapiro, a senior supervising attorney for democracy and voting rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which also filed a brief.
Nelson shared a similar warning in her closing rebuttal argument on behalf of the Black voters.
“Any further neutering of Section Two would resurrect the 15th Amendment as a mere parchment promise,” she said.
WATCH: Thousands gather in D.C. to pray for national unity
WASHINGTON – Attendees gathered at Communion America to pray for two revivals. One is religious. The other, national unity.
“Politics are the talking heads, you know, nobody’s made any points with the other side,” said David Clemons, artist and Idaho resident. “We’ve kind of reached an impasse, and it’s a God-sized problem, so it needs a God-sized solution.”
This event brought a Communion Table to the National Mall, stretching a mile and a half from the Capitol to the Washington Monument. People from all 50 states gathered for four days of nonstop prayer.
It was the first gathering of the Christian-focused event since 2017 and the first to feature the communion table. Organizers like Kyle Barr hope the gathering is an antidote to divisions in the country.
“There’s been so much hate and crimes going on and killings, you know, shootings,” Barr said. “And we just really believe that Jesus is the answer. And so now we need to – instead of spreading hate, we want to spread peace and unity.”
Attendees said they felt it was important in this current tense political climate.
WATCH THE VIDEO REPORT HERE:
Supreme Court considers moderate standard for warrantless home entry
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared to favor a moderately flexible standard to dictate when law enforcement could enter a home without a warrant in cases of emergency after hearing oral arguments in Case v. Montana on Wednesday.
The court’s decision, expected by this coming summer, may clarify what standard law enforcement must meet in order to enter a home without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant or meet the legal standard of probable cause before they enter a home. However, the Supreme Court has historically recognized some exceptions in cases of emergencies.
In Case v. Montana, police officers responded to William Trevor Case’s Montana home in 2021, after hearing Case had threatened to commit suicide. When Case emerged from a closet, one officer saw an object near Case’s waist that he thought was a gun and shot him.
Case, an army veteran with a history of mental health issues, was later charged with assaulting a police officer.
A trial court denied Case’s motion to exclude evidence obtained after police entered his house without a warrant. A divided Montana Supreme Court upheld that ruling, concluding that police can enter a home without a warrant in cases that do not involve criminal investigations as long as the entry is “reasonable given the facts and circumstances.”
On Wednesday, lawyers for Case argued that law enforcement should have had to have probable cause to enter his home. Lawyers for Montana said law enforcement needs more discretion. Both referenced a nearly 20-year-old case, Brigham City v. Stuart.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that police may enter a building without a warrant when they have “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.” This standard is widely interpreted to fall between “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause.”
Justices reiterated the relevance of this intermediate standard on Wednesday, while lawyers for both sides showcased different interpretations.
In their arguments, Case’s lawyers reasoned that the language in Brigham City is similar to probable cause. The justices seemed unconvinced.
Justice Elena Kagan said, while probable cause is not “self-defining,” its definition rests in precedent inside of “an investigatory criminal context.”
“In this context, [of emergency home entry] that way of figuring out whether there’s probable cause just disappears,” Kagan said.
Some advocacy organizations, including the ACLU, worry that lowering the standard for home entry would invite invasions of privacy and abuse, as officers could use an “emergency aid” rationale to enter a home and pursue investigatory aims once inside. Additionally, some argue that an increased number of home entries would exacerbate the safety risks posed to officers and occupants when law enforcement enters a home.
The Supreme Court has previously laid out a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, which allows police to act in a non-law enforcement capacity. More recently, in Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court ruled that this exception does not extend to warrantless searches and seizures in the home.
Still, some lawyers, including Michael Mannheimer, a professor at Northern Kentucky University, who filed an amicus brief in the case, say that police should be allowed entry into a house on the lower standard of reasonable suspicion for public safety or public health emergencies, so that they can respond to crises in a timely manner.
“That’s what’s at stake,” Mannheimer said. “There are going to be situations where people are victimized behind closed doors and the police are not going to be able to do anything about it.”
When questioning Case’s lawyer, Justice Samuel Alito voiced a similar concern, listing the evidence the police had compiled about Case before they entered the house, including having seen “an empty holster and an apparent suicide note.”
“I mean, what more did they need?” he asked.
House Democrats pressure Republicans to end the shutdown and swear in Congresswoman-elect Grijalva
WASHINGTON—House Democrats were on Capitol Hill in full force this week to address the shutdown, pressure Republicans to vote on health care and swear in Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz).
More than half of the House Democratic Caucus were involved in press events, protests and meetings throughout the week, despite House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) keeping the House out of session.
“We are open to sitting down, anytime, anyplace, with anyone in terms of our Republican colleagues, either here at Capitol, or back in the Oval Office to have a conversation about finding a bipartisan path forward,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), said in a press conference on Tuesday, adding “but there has to be willingness among Republicans to actually have a conversation.”
Earlier in the week, Johnson said that keeping the House out of session had wide support within his party.
“I’ve heard criticism from, I think, three members on our conference call…you can poll individual House Republicans, and 98.7% of them will tell you that this is the right thing,” he said.
Johnson also suggested that an end to the shutdown was not entirely contingent on Republicans willing to compromise, adding that Democrats were blocking the Senate GOP’s attempts to pass a funding resolution.
“Republicans do have control of Congress, quote unquote, but it’s 60 votes to pass a funding bill. All of this is the way the Founders intended the process to work,” Johnson said.
Democrats are refusing to vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government because they want Congress to deal with funding cuts to health care and rising premiums on the Affordable Care Act.
GOP leadership claims that the health care funding Democrats seek will go to pay for care for undocumented immigrants, at the expense of American citizens.
“How many times will you vote to put illegals first and Americans last?” Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), Chairwoman of the Republican Conference, said on Oct. 8, addressing Democrats. “The answer to that question is, as long as the radical base keeps calling the shots,” she added.
People in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for any federal health care programs including insurance through the Affordable Care Act or through Medicaid. Some federal funds do go to hospitals, which are required to treat everyone regardless of citizenship status.
On Wednesday, Jeffries and an energized House Democratic Caucus held a caucus-wide press conference at the Capitol steps to urge their Republican colleagues to address health care disparities.
Meanwhile, Democrats are expressing frustration that Johnson is keeping the House out of session.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) believes that Johnson is reluctant to bring the House back without the support of President Trump.
“It would take the president telling him that he has permission, because the Speaker has forgotten that we are co-equal branches of government, and he only does what the President allows him to,” she told Medill News Service.
Grijalva at a House Hispanic Caucus press conference on her delayed swearing-in.(Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
In addition to seeking an end to the shutdown and a bipartisan agreement on health care subsidies, Democrats are also calling for the swearing in of Arizona Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election in September but has yet to be sworn into office.
Johnson has stated that he is willing to swear Grijalva in, but is waiting for the shutdown to end and an opportunity for Grijalva’s family to be in attendance.
“Speaker Johnson has falsely cited procedures. He’s falsely cited precedent, and he’s citing the courtesy of pomp and circumstance. Give me a break. That’s not courtesy, that’s condescending to Adelita Grijalva and to the people of Southern Arizona,” Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) said Tuesday morning.
A group of House Democrats protested the delayed swearing-in in front of Johnson’s office, chanting “swear her in.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) says she suspects Johnson is using the government shutdown as an avenue to stall Grijalva’s swearing in, as hers would be the final vote needed to file a motion to release the Epstein files.
“He’s clearly so afraid of the Epstein files that the 218th signature is terrifying for him, because the Justice Department would actually have to release all the files, not just the ones that they want to release,” she told Medill News Service.
Grijalva says Johnson’s refusal to swear her in reflects poorly on the Speaker and the Republican party.
“There is just a list of excuses as to why I’m not getting sworn in. None of them hold water when you compare what’s happened with the three other people that he’s sworn in this year,” she told Medill News Service.
With no immediate end to the shutdown in sight, Democrats continue to press for Republicans to address health care costs in the CR to fund the government, while Republicans argue that prolonging the shutdown over health care funding is harming Americans.
WATCH: FREE DC HOLDS ART BUILD FOR NO KINGS PROTEST SATURDAY
WASHINGTON – Community-run organization Free DC will protest outside the Capitol this upcoming Saturday.
Free DC, which describes itself as a “movement led by the people of the District of Columbia,” will be protesting against the Trump administration’s “harmful and destructive” agenda and seeking to “bring this regime to an end.”
“This is not a place that we want occupied by the military, this is not a place where we want gangs of federal agents kidnapping our neighbors,” said Free DC Executive Director Keya Chatterjee. “This is our home, and our values are not aligned with that.”
Free DC held an art build on Monday in preparation for the protest this weekend.
“The purpose of doing this art build and making things is we’re not going to be defeated,” said Free DC Arts and Culture team Co-lead Stephanie Rudig. “We’re not going to be beaten down.”
WATCH THE VIDEO REPORT HERE:
Lawmakers call for Rep.-elect Grijalva to be sworn into office
Democratic Arizona lawmakers and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus gathered outside the Capitol on Wednesday to demand Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) be sworn into office immediately after weeks of delays.
“It’s this Congressional purgatory,” Grijalva said. “Everyone keeps treating me like I’m a member of Congress, which I appreciate, but I’m not, very clearly. Everyone keeps asking for where that amazing little button is, and that represents 812,000 people. It’s not okay. It’s not okay, and I’m not going to let myself just take it.”
Grijalva won a special election in September in Arizona’s Seventh Congressional District. The seat was left vacant after her father, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), passed away in the spring.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Grijalva would be sworn in once the House returned to session, but he has kept the House out of session since the government shutdown started two weeks ago.
Democratic lawmakers suggested Johnson purposefully delayed swearing in Grijalva to prevent the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) sponsored a petition to order the DOJ to release all related files. It is one signature short, and Grijalva has said she would be the 218th lawmaker needed to force a House floor vote on the matter.
“There is zero question in my mind that a huge, huge part of this is around buying time around the Epstein issue,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said.
Earlier this year, Johnson swore in two Republican congressmen from Florida within 24 hours of their special elections.
When asked why he is not holding a similar pro forma session for Grijalva, Johnson said there were special circumstances for his Republican colleagues because their families had traveled to D.C. for the ceremony.
Johnson also said Grijalva needed “pomp and circumstance” to be sworn in, which the representative-elect denied Wednesday morning.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) said giving the speaker the power to decide when to swear in elected officials sets a dangerous precedent.
“You could imagine the consequences of that — take it to its logical extreme — that a speaker can decide which members of the Democratic caucus get sworn in, or a Democratic Speaker decides which members of the Republican caucus get sworn in,” Stanton said. “That’s a very dangerous thing for American democracy.”
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatened legal action Tuesday against Johnson if he continued to delay swearing in Grijalva, after election results were officially certified. Grijalva won nearly 70% of the votes.
The representative-elect said she will continue applying public pressure and is looking at possible legal avenues, sending letters to Johnson and even knocking on his office door. Waiting to officially become a member of Congress is a “horrible nightmare,” she said.
“This is just another blow to southern Arizona,” Grijalva said. “Personally, to me, to not be able to do my job is — incredibly frustrating is an understatement.”
DC tourist attractions closed amid government shutdown, leaving visitors in limbo
WASHINGTON — Smithsonian museums and federally run tourist sites in the nation’s capital began shutting down last week and, by Oct. 11, were fully closed as the federal government shutdown continued. The closures left tourists scrambling and local businesses bracing for losses.
The Smithsonian Institution, funded primarily through federal appropriations, has been able to keep some museums open using prior-year reserves, but those funds have run out. All 19 Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo have closed.
But it’s not just the Smithsonian. Other tourist attractions run by the federal government are also closed. That includes: the U.S Capitol and White House tours, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. National Arboretum, the National Archives, Ford’s Theatre, and rides to the top of the Washington Monument.
Some privately funded museums remain open, including the Phillips Collection, the National Museum of Women in the Artsand the Spy Museum, but many require entrance fees.
Destination DC, the city’s official tourism marketing organization, said the timing raised the stakes for the capital’s tourism industry.
“October is a peak period, with many meetings, conventions, special events and reasons to visit Washington, DC,” said Elliott L. Ferguson, II, president and CEO of Destination DC. “That’s a major difference for visitation compared with a shutdown that hits in January.”
Dorothy Phillips, a Washington resident, had family from Florida visiting this week. They were planning to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Air & Space Museum, and other Smithsonian museums. Instead, she’s scrambling to come up with other activities. “They’re only here for a couple of days and we’ve planned this forever,” she said. “I don’t know where else to go.”
Esther Lee, a first-time D.C. tourist from Taipei City, Taiwan, arrived determined to check off the classics, including a Capitol tour. But it was canceled.
“I’m very disappointed. I came to America’s capital to learn more about the U.S, and I got greeted with the shutdown,” she said in Mandarin.
The Smithsonian museums draw an estimated 27 million visitors annually. Local tour operators, dependent on museum-goers as customers, said they are canceling route segments or folding in longer waits. Some restaurants have told staff to expect thinner lunch service. Hotels around Foggy Bottom, Capitol Hill, and L’Enfant Plaza are bracing for impact.
“We’ve been preparing for more cancellations, that’s for sure,” said a manager at The Royal Sonesta Hotel in Washington, D.C.
While outdoor monuments remain partially accessible, the shutdown means closed public restrooms, absent ranger staff and closed gift shops.
Aditi Fruitwala, a D.C. resident whose friends from Los Angeles visited last week, described the situation as deeply disruptive. “We had tickets to Ford’s Theatre that got canceled because it’s closed,” she said. “It’s a really big disruption in our lives.”
Other visitors also noted how the shutdown shifted their usual outings into private venues or paid experiences they had not originally budgeted for.
“We need to get more tickets for other things,” said one visitor from Virginia. “We’re paying for things we wouldn’t normally pay for…it adds up fast.”
As the shutdown drags on, local businesses are dealing with cancellations and refunds, tourists are shifting plans and the city is facing negative word-of-mouth.
To counter the perception of a fully closed city, Destination DC revived a contingency campaign.
“On Oct. 1, we re-launched ‘DC is Open’ to communicate that DC is open and ready with so much to see and do despite a federal government shutdown,” Ferguson said.
Run by Destination DC, Washington.org, DC’s official tourism site, has been updated with the status of federal sites and alternatives in “dining, shopping, theater, sports and more.”
According to Ferguson, a record 27.2 million people visited the nation’s capital in 2024, spending $11.4 billion, resulting in $2.3 billion in tax revenue and supporting 111,500 jobs.
“If organizers don’t realize their full attendance, their bottom line is affected. Lower visitor numbers adversely affect our local businesses and residents. When meetings and events don’t take place, people aren’t working,” he said.
WATCH: Washington Celebrates Columbus and Indigenous Peoples’ Day
WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital celebrated both Christopher Columbus and Indigenous Peoples on Monday, just days after President Donald Trump signed a proclamation to reclaim Christopher Columbus’ legacy, which he said “left-wing arsonists” have sought to destroy.
The federal holiday has been the center of growing controversy due to the violence, slavery and colonization that Columbus’ arrival brought to the Western Hemisphere. A movement to celebrate “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” was officially recognized by President Biden in 2021, although it was never made a federal holiday and Columbus Day remained one.
While some supporters of Columbus Day see it as a celebration of Italian-American heritage, others question why the holiday centers on Columbus, who never set foot in North America.
“Why do you want to name a day after somebody of such low moral values?” said A’lice Myers-Hall, president of the American Indian Society of Washington, D.C.
Watch the video report here:
Some lawmakers refuse pay while shutdown continues
WASHINGTON – Since the government shut down on October 1, many federal employees are working without pay, have been furloughed, or have even been laid off.
While these workers will have to go without pay, members of Congress will still receive their paychecks. That’s because lawmakers’ pay is protected under Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. Their staffers’ is not.
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) is one of a handful of lawmakers who disagree with the law. On September 30, just before the government shut down, Norman reintroduced a constitutional amendment that would bar members of Congress from receiving compensation in “any period during which a Government shutdown is in effect.”
“Members of Congress have a constitutional duty to fund the government’s essential functions,” Norman said in a press release. “If Congress fails to meet that obligation, we should not expect taxpayers to continue paying us for inaction.”
In addition to Norman’s proposed constitutional amendment, the No Budget, No Pay Act introduced by Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.) in the House and sponsored by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) in the Senate, similarly proposes that members of Congress not be paid in a fiscal year until “both chambers approve the budget resolution and pass all regular appropriations bills for that fiscal year.”
“Congress has a responsibility to the American people to pass a budget and appropriate funds in a timely, transparent manner,” Moore said. “The No Budget, No Pay Act will enforce a return to regular order by holding Members of Congress directly accountable: no budget, no paycheck.”
Though so far these charges have mainly been led by Republican lawmakers, the content of these bills echoes the sentiments of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
“It’s wrong that the President and Members of Congress get paid during a government shutdown when our military and public servants don’t,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) in a statement before the shutdown began. “I will be refusing my own pay if we end up in a shutdown. Government leaders shouldn’t be playing with other people’s chips.”
Since the start of the shutdown, Kim has joined the roughly two dozen lawmakers, both Republican and Democratic, who have asked for their pay to be withheld. For some of these lawmakers, refusing pay while the shutdown continues is just common sense.
“Accountability is not optional,” Norman said. “It is the foundation of public service, and Congress must be held to the same standard as the people we represent.”
Other lawmakers are also choosing to redirect or donate their shutdown pay to charity. Sens. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) say they are both donating their paychecks to local nonprofit organizations in their respective states.
“Each day the government remains closed, I will be donating my salary to the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay which provides help to vulnerable populations who may be impacted,” Moody said.
However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) has refused to call lawmakers back into session, stating: “We’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history.” The shutdown can’t end, nor can the proposed amendment or the No Budget, No Pay Act be called for a vote until the House is back in session.
Norman, alongside other lawmakers, vow to continue to have pay withheld until the shutdown ends.
“No one else in America would get paid for failing to fulfill their duties,” Norman said. “Congress should face the same principle.”
Medill Today | Wednesday, October 29, 2025