Connect with us

News

'Mad House' exposes Congressional disfunction, from petty feuds to physical threats

Published

on

'Mad House' exposes Congressional disfunction, from petty feuds to physical threats

The 118th body of Congress was elected in 2022 and served from 2023 until 2025.

Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty

It’s no secret that Capitol Hill is often mired in partisan politics and infighting, but a new book highlights additional chaos that public doesn’t see. In Mad House, Annie Karni and Luke Broadwater — both veteran reporters for The New York Times — chronicle the 118th body of Congress, which was elected in 2022 and served from January 2023 until January 2025.

Karni and Broadwater describe the 118th House as the first MAGA-controlled Congress, one that fully adopted the extremism and stagecraft of Trumpism. During its two-year session, the House passed only 27 bills that became law — the lowest number since the Great Depression.

Mad House chronicles how Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was elected speaker of the House after 15 rounds of voting — only to be ousted 10 months later. It also revisits the infamous spat in which Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) traded personal barbs during at a House committee oversight meeting. That particular meeting was held in the evening, which, Karni says, can be a particularly fraught time for legislative events.

Advertisement

Karni and Broadwater write that Republicans had a very narrow majority in the 118th Congress — with a handful of party members who often refused to do what the leadership wanted.

“When you have a tiny majority, any member can throw themselves in the mix and make themselves the deciding vote,” Karni explains. “And in the last Congress, it gave this group of 20 … far-right members outsized power. … And that’s who really kind of decided how the House functioned last year — or, more likely, did not function.”

Broadwater says current House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) owes his position to the endorsement President Trump. “And you’re seeing that play out right now with how the House has chosen not to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government to Donald Trump, not to conduct oversight of the administration, and to essentially make itself a subservient branch,” Broadwater adds.

Looking ahead, Broadwater predicts we’ll see more Congressional disfunction, rather than less — especially since “it seems that voters actually like the fisticuffs.”

“A successful way to win primaries on the Right is to be the loudest, the fighter, the most extreme,” Broadwater explains. “So what we’re seeing now in the Democratic party is I think there’s a desire among the populace for the Democrats to become more of the party of fighting and not the party that plays by Robert’s Rules and keeps things super professional.”

Advertisement

Karni agrees: “Looking back on it now, I feel like if you want to understand the moment we’re in, it’s really brought to you by these characters from the 118th Congress.”

Interview highlights

Mad House

Mad House

Penguin Random House


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Penguin Random House

On members of Congress sometimes sleeping in their offices instead of renting an apartment in Washington, D.C.

Karni: A lot of people can’t have two residences, and the office sleeping is a long-time thing. It kind of got less popular during COVID and after the MeToo movement because it’s an awkward thing to be living in your office and having staffers walk in in the morning and you’re, like, brushing your teeth. But people still do it to save money.

Broadwater: It’s extremely expensive to live in DC, and then you have a family back home and probably a house or a mortgage or at least an apartment back home. And so you have two residences and it becomes kind of untenable for them to deal on one salary unless you’re independently wealthy, which a lot of the members of Congress and a lot of the senators are extremely wealthy. But if you’re somebody like AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] or somebody else who comes from smaller means, it does become quite difficult.

Advertisement

On burnout among members of Congress

Advertisement

Karni: For these House members, it’s a slog. First of all, there’s the travel. I mean, you are back and forth every week. Like, if you live across the country, the jet lag and the travel is just crushing. Then there is not seeing your family. … That takes a toll. … The physical violence and the threats [have] become huge. I mean, these members are under constant threats of violence, and they don’t have protection. If they want protection, they have to pay for it themselves from their campaign. Not to mention, then, you’re doing all of this traveling and not having a regular family life and being threatened. And then you look at it and you’re like, “For what? When we’re here, the House floor is frozen. We’re not actually voting. … It took a week to elect a speaker. For what?” So a lot of people just made the calculation it’s just not worth it anymore.

On the Left criticizing Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his response to the current Trump administration

Karni: I think right now what’s happening is Chuck Schumer has become the boogeyman of the Democratic Party among rank-and-file House Democrats and among voters, for just emotion and frustration at just wanting to do more, wanting to fight back. And this is because last week he voted with Republicans to stave off a government shutdown. If Democrats had not joined Republicans in the Senate, we would be in a government shutdown right now. And Chuck Schumer has been defending this decision for the past week, saying that would have been much, much worse. Elon Musk and Donald Trump wanted a shutdown. It would have allowed them to decide which programs are essential and not essential, and therefore never bring them back. His example that he’s been talking a lot about is SNAP, food stamps. They could just say during a shutdown, “This is not essential.” And during a shutdown, there’s no court check. So that could just go away.

On the relationship between Republicans in the current Congress and Elon Musk’s DOGE task force

Broadwater: It looks to me like they are embracing Elon Musk and his mission very much so. Each chamber has set up its own DOGE caucus, and they are trying to implement his cuts into their various spending plans. When he comes to Capitol Hill, he gave out his private cell phone number to members. He has tried to court people individually. And he’s posing for pictures. But Elon Musk, his polling is much lower than Donald Trump’s. The public at large does not feel the same way they feel about Trump as they do with Elon Musk. And Democrats, I believe, are focusing in on him as perhaps their best target. He wasn’t elected. He’s extremely rich. They know that there’s a lot of populist anger against the wealthy. And so, if the richest man in the world, who has all these contracts with the federal government, is coming in slashing the jobs of regular workers — and there are federal workers not just in DC, but all over the country — you can see how that could be a potent political weapon for Democrats to wield.

Advertisement

Sam Briger and Susan Nyakundi produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the web.

News

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Published

on

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Candidates in California’s volatile race for governor will meet Wednesday night for the first televised debate since Eric Swalwell dropped out, each looking to seize momentum in the tight contest.

The debate, being held at the television studio of KRON4 in San Francisco, will include four Democrats and two Republicans who are tightly bunched in recent polls, with many voters still undecided less than six weeks before the June 2 primary.

Mr. Swalwell, a Democrat, had just begun to emerge as a Democratic front-runner when his campaign swiftly collapsed after he was accused of sexual assault in news reports on April 10.

Candidates have taken relatively few risks so far in debates around the state, but every candidate is now eyeing a chance to jump to the front of the pack.

“Even though we have seen some movement in the last couple of weeks, it continues to be a fairly crowded, fractured field,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College. “So candidates need to be able to grab attention in a debate like this.”

Advertisement

The debate comes as Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former California attorney general, has enjoyed a surge of support in polls since Mr. Swalwell dropped out of the race.

Mr. Becerra and Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, did not originally meet the threshold to participate in Wednesday’s debate when Mr. Swalwell was running. But they both qualified after receiving enough support in a follow-up poll that debate organizers commissioned once Mr. Swalwell had dropped out.

The other Democrats scheduled to participate are Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, and Katie Porter, a former congresswoman, each of whom have been polling near the top of the Democratic field for several weeks. The Republicans in the debate are Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host who has been endorsed by President Trump, and Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County.

All candidates run on the same ballot in California’s nonpartisan primary, with the two who receive the most votes advancing to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. The large number of Democratic candidates has created fear among state party leaders that their voters could splinter, potentially allowing two Republicans to sweep the primary in this heavily Democratic state.

The odds of that happening have decreased since Mr. Swalwell dropped out and another Democrat, Betty Yee, withdrew on Monday. But Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, still believes there are too many Democrats in the race and has urged those lagging in polls to end their campaigns. (The actual ballot will include 61 candidates for governor, most of whom are completely unknown to voters.)

Advertisement

The messy race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for re-election because of term limits, has played out as the most unpredictable contest California has seen in a generation. It has attracted a sprawling field but no one with the star power of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the political might of Mr. Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Much of California’s Democratic establishment is still figuring out whom to back in the turbulent race.

Mr. Newsom has not endorsed anyone, saying he trusts voters to elect someone “who reflects the values and direction Californians believe in.” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the influential former House speaker from San Francisco, and Senator Alex Padilla also have not announced their favorites. Senator Adam Schiff endorsed Mr. Swalwell earlier this year but quickly withdrew his support after the accusations against him were published.

On Tuesday, Ms. Yee endorsed Mr. Steyer, praising his work to fight climate change and engage young voters. Mr. Steyer has swamped his competitors with a raft of advertising by pouring $134 million from his personal fortune into his campaign.

Also on Tuesday, Mr. Becerra, whose campaign had appeared to be flailing until Mr. Swalwell dropped out, received the endorsement of Robert Rivas, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly. Mr. Rivas said he had encouraged Mr. Becerra to run for governor because he was impressed by his work as California’s attorney general during President Trump’s first term.

Advertisement

“He understands both the policy and the politics,” Mr. Rivas said in an interview. “And he has a track record, in my opinion, of delivering results under pressure.”

The 90-minute debate on Wednesday begins at 7 p.m. PT and will be broadcast and streamed by KRON and other California stations.

Continue Reading

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending