I’ve been thinking a lot about Congresswoman McIver lately, and not just because of the federal case and political attacks she’s experiencing by the Trump administration. I’ve been thinking about what happens in this country when Black women get elected, appointed, or hired into positions of power and decide to use that power.

Many say they want Black women to lead. They celebrate them when they make history as the first this or that, run for office, organize their communities, and break barriers. There is no shortage of praise for Black women when their leadership is inspirational or convenient. But something changes when that leadership becomes perceived as confrontational or an affront to white supremacy. When a Black woman challenges an institution, refuses to back down to bully tactics, or takes up more space than people are comfortable with, the praise can disappear quickly.

And none of this started with McIver. There is a long American tradition of treating Black resistance as inherently threatening. Civil rights protesters were surveilled, beaten, arrested, and called agitators for challenging segregation. Black organizers were followed by the FBI and treated as threats to the country for demanding that the country live up to its own promises. It has happened since 2020, too.

The names and circumstances change, but the underlying message is remarkably durable: Black people can participate in the system, but challenging the system is something else entirely. And Black women often encounter an additional layer of punishment when they do it. Their authority becomes attitude. Their insistence becomes aggression. Their refusal to move becomes the offense.

That history is part of the reason what is happening to McIver feels so familiar. This country has never had much difficulty celebrating Black progress after the fact. It has had a much harder time dealing with Black people who demand accountability in real time.

Then, suddenly, she’s “angry.” “Aggressive.” “Difficult.”

That praise can quickly turn into prosecution.

I can’t—nor will I attempt to—separate that history from what has happened to Congresswoman McIver, or from what has happened to Black people who have challenged authority in this country for generations.

In May 2025, McIver joined other members of Congress at Delaney Hall, an immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, as part of a congressional oversight visit. During the visit, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka entered a secured area of the facility and was later told by federal officers that he had to leave. What followed was chaotic. As officers moved to arrest Baraka, McIver and others were caught in a crowded confrontation with federal agents.

Prosecutors allege that McIver tried to prevent officers from arresting Baraka and made physical contact with two officers, including striking one with her forearm and grabbing another. Video captured parts of the confrontation, although reporting at the time noted that the footage did not clearly establish whether McIver’s contact with the officers was intentional.

While Baraka’s trespassing charge was later dismissed, the federal government moved forward against McIver. She was eventually charged with three federal counts related to allegedly assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officers. McIver pleaded not guilty and has maintained that the prosecution is politically motivated.

That context matters because the story is not simply that a member of Congress showed up at a detention facility one day and chaos ensued. It is also about what the government chose to do afterward, and who it chose to pursue.

More recently, McIver suffered a significant setback in court. A divided panel of the Third Circuit allowed two of the charges against her to move forward while sending another count back to the district court for further consideration.

I understand full well that the law does not operate outside of politics, race, gender, or power. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make our analysis more objective; it makes it incomplete.

McIver has faced threats, racist attacks, enormous legal expenses, an effort to censure her in Congress, and a level of vitriol that goes well beyond disagreement over what happened at Delaney Hall. We have seen her temperament, her body, her tone, and her authority picked apart in ways that feel painfully familiar if you have ever watched what happens to Black women who refuse to make themselves smaller in public. That matters.

Scholar Moya Bailey gave us the term “misogynoir” to describe the kind of misogyny Black women experience because racism and sexism do not operate separately from one another. You can see that dynamic in politics all the time. Behavior that reads as commanding from someone else becomes threatening from a Black woman. Assertiveness gets interpreted as aggression. Confidence becomes arrogance. Even when legitimate criticism exists, it can quickly become entangled with stereotypes that are much older than the controversy itself.

Saying that does not require believing race and gender explain everything about McIver’s case. But pretending they have nothing to do with the way she has been talked about and vilified requires ignoring a whole lot of American history.

McIver is the one paying the price right now. But her prosecution sends a message to every member of Congress who is supposed to hold the executive branch accountable. And, regrettably, that’s the point.

But if we believe in checks and balances, we know that Congress is supposed to ‘check’ the executive branch. That responsibility does not disappear merely based on who occupies the White House. Our system depends on Congress being able to investigate government conduct, visit federal facilities, ask uncomfortable questions, and demand answers.

That is why I keep coming back to what other members of Congress might take away from McIver’s experience. If conducting oversight can potentially mean prosecution, massive legal expenses, threats, and becoming the target of national ridicule and abuse, how many people will think twice before showing up next time?

When the government can make an example out of an elected official for challenging its authority, other people are watching. Other members of Congress are watching. Advocates are watching. Protesters are watching. Ordinary people are watching. And everyone is learning something about the cost of dissent.

That is why this is an attack on democracy. Democracy requires more than elections. It requires people who are willing to question those in power and institutions strong enough to challenge one another. It also requires us to recognize when government power is being weaponized to punish, intimidate, or silence the people willing to do that challenging.

LaMonica McIver deserves full support.

Make no mistake: This prosecution is politically motivated and unfair. Congressional oversight cannot become something elected officials are afraid to exercise. The racist and misogynistic attacks against her are not incidental to this story; they are part of it. And Black women should not have to become smaller, quieter, or less forceful to make other people comfortable with their power.

What happens to McIver matters beyond just one person. If the cost of challenging government power becomes prosecution, financial devastation, threats, and public humiliation, eventually fewer people will be willing to challenge it. And a democracy where people are too afraid to confront power is a democracy in trouble.

Not quietly. Not cautiously. And not with a dozen qualifiers about why she deserves our support.

Congresswoman McIver deserves it because what is happening to her is wrong. She is being attacked for doing the job she was elected to do. The legal system is being weaponized against her for conducting proper oversight.

And if we care about the kind of democracy we claim to believe in, we should be willing to say so.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

· Civil Rights Groups Sue to Block Trump USPS Rules Threatening Mail-In Votes for 48 Million Americans

· Common Cause Defends More Than 39 Million Votes

· Four Times that the People Beat Corruption

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Subscribe now

Share

Few reality shows have made surveillance as entertaining as Big Brother. The premise is practically part of pop culture at this point: put a group of strangers in a house, surround them with cameras and microphones, and watch what happens when privacy disappears and information becomes currency. Who said what, who is talking to whom, and which alliances are forming behind closed doors can determine who stays, who goes, and who ultimately walks away with the prize.

My friend Taylor Hale knows something about winning that game. When Taylor won Big Brother 24, becoming the first Black woman to win the main U.S. series, she did it after spending much of the season being underestimated, ostracized, and targeted. Watching her go from the person people wanted out of the house to the person sitting in those final two chairs—and then winning the whole thing—was incredible.

Of course, there is one part of Big Brother that is fun only because it is happening on television: everybody is being watched. Cameras are everywhere. Microphones catch conversations. Where you go, who you talk to, and who you spend time with all become information that someone else can use. On Big Brother, the cameras are impossible to miss. They are part of the premise, and contestants know they are there. In everyday life, surveillance is rarely so obvious. We often don’t know what information is being collected about us, who has access to it, or whether data provided for one reason will eventually be used for another.

Still, more of our lives are becoming searchable, trackable, and accessible to government institutions Families provide deeply personal information when applying for government assistance. Automated license-plate readers photograph cars as people move through their communities. Today, surveillance can look like a database and somebody with permission to search for it.

For me, that question isn’t theoretical. It connects directly to our work at Common Cause. Since 2025, the Department of Justice has demanded states’ turn over their private voter files, which can contain sensitive information including addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license information, Social Security numbers, and voting history. Common Cause and our partners have been fighting these efforts to defend your privacy, including suing to block the federal government’s attempts to illegally stockpile sensitive voter information.

Here’s what bothers me about that. When you register to vote, you provide information because you want to participate in democracy. That’s the transaction. You aren’t thinking, Let me hand over some information that might eventually be dumped into a giant federal database and compared with a bunch of other records about me. There is a tendency in privacy debates to respond that the government already possesses much of this information. But having my information for one purpose does not mean you should get to use it for every purpose. This sensitive information is kept separate for a reason, because the more information the government has centralized, the more control they can exert over you.

We’re seeing similar concerns around Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Recent changes have raised alarms about expanded federal access to sensitive information families provide when applying for assistance, including the possibility that data collected to administer benefits could be shared across federal agencies and used for purposes like immigration enforcement. That should concern all of us. Families provide this information because they need support, not because they expect details about their households to potentially become part of a broader government surveillance apparatus.

Think about what that does to trust. A parent provides personal information because their family needs help, only to worry that asking for assistance could expose someone in their household to another government agency. Suddenly, a program designed to help people becomes something families may be afraid to use. Information collected for one purpose should not automatically become government property for every imaginable purpose.

And then there are the cameras.

Automated license-plate readers, including systems operated by Flock Safety, can record where and when vehicles are seen. Law enforcement argues these systems help locate stolen cars and solve crimes, and I understand why those capabilities can be useful. But allegedly useful technology can still create dangerous power.

We’ve already seen examples. Police in Kansas used license-plate-reader technology while pursuing a man who had written an op-ed criticizing the department. In Colorado, Flock data helped lead an officer to wrongly accuse a woman of theft. In Georgia, a police chief searched for his ex-girlfriend’s vehicle and her teenage daughter’s vehicle roughly 600 times, according to search logs reported by The Washington Post.

This is where voter files, TANF records, immigration enforcement, and Flock cameras stop looking like separate policy debates. One database may know where you’re registered to vote. Another contains information about your family. License-plate readers can reveal where a vehicle has traveled. Other government systems contain citizenship or immigration information. The greatest danger isn’t necessarily one database or one camera. It’s what becomes possible when all this information can be searched, shared, and connected.

We also must build systems for the government we distrust, not simply the government we trust. Surveillance infrastructure created today can still be sitting there tomorrow, available to a different administration, police chief, sheriff, or federal agency with very different ideas about who deserves scrutiny.

And that’s where the Big Brother comparison really lands for me. On television, the cameras are visible. In real life, surveillance is increasingly happening in the background: while we vote, seek assistance, drive across town, attend a protest, or simply go about our day.

Registering to vote shouldn’t mean wondering where your information will eventually end up. Applying for assistance shouldn’t force a family to calculate whether seeking help might expose them to immigration enforcement. Driving to a doctor’s appointment, meeting, protest, church, bar, clinic, or friend’s house shouldn’t quietly create a searchable history of our movements.

The scariest version of Big Brother isn’t someone staring at millions of television screens. It’s a database here, a camera there, an information-sharing agreement most people never heard about, and one system quietly gaining access to another.

Eventually, the government doesn’t need someone watching you. It can just search you with little-to-no warning.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

· Senate Greenlights Blanche Bad Behavior

· Common Cause Secures Legal Win for DC Voter Privacy

· Lawsuit Against Trump-Vance Administration’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” Amended to Include First of Its Kind Challenge to Unlawful IRS Immunity Scheme

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Subscribe now

Share

This week, we heard it again. President Donald Trump’s latest desperate attempt to run and hide from voters this November is a threat to use magical “emergency powers” to stop Americans from voting.

We hear it every few months. The emergency is coming! Action must happen.

The U.S. Constitution could not be clearer on this point. States and Congress have the power to set the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections. Pull out your finest cartoon detective magnifying glass and look through the Constitution. You won’t find anything granting the president authority to suggest something as trivial as what poll workers should have for lunch, let alone allowing him to stop Americans from exercising their right to vote by delaying or changing our elections.

So here we are. The President sees the polls, reads the headlines, sees the election is near and yells EMERGENCY! Hoping someone – states, Congress, someone, will save him from his situation. Much like the boy who cried wolf was trying to escape his boredom.

You may be asking yourself, what happens if the president does submit an emergency executive order on elections. The most famous Supreme Court case on the topic of emergency powers is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). In this case, President Harry Truman attempted to seize control of privately owned steel mills to avoid the risk to defense manufacturing and the economy that a potential strike would create during the Korean War. Unlike the fantastical tales Donald Trump is telling about how American elections are run, the Korean War actually happened. Despite these quite real wartime circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman was overstepping his authority and ordered the federal government to return control of the mills to their owners. If the president can’t use an actual war as an excuse to take control of private industry, he certainly can’t use fairy tales about our elections and fear of the results as an excuse to stop Americans from voting.

Since the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent are so clear, state governments and advocates will be in an incredibly strong position to stop this potential authoritarian power grab in courts of law and the court of public opinion. With a roster of potential plaintiffs in every corner of the country – including state governments and voters – the only question will be who can sprint to the courtroom first to keep American elections on track. Trust me, it would be a sprint! Civil rights groups and other democracy advocates like Common Cause will keep up the pressure to demand that their state leaders fight back against any attempt to threaten our right to vote. In an age of deep political divisions, I suspect that a federal takeover of elections will be an issue that brings Democratic and Republican state leaders together.

So, to answer the question directly: the president can try, but we’re guessing a court will strike down the so-called emergency order within days of it being filed.

Regardless of the noise from the president and his allies, nonpartisan democracy and civil rights advocates will accelerate our work so all Americans can exercise their right to vote. The Election Protection coalition will continue working with election administrators across the country to ensure that our systems of democracy work for the people. We will be at early voting and Election Day polling places to answer voters’ questions. We will sound the alarm on any problems that are interfering with voting and act as a first line of defense and support in an unprecedented moment of history in which the biggest threat to representative democracy sits in the Oval Office.

The bluster and nonsense emanating from that office, including false claims of emergencies, is startling. However, it won’t distract advocates from our crucial work. There will be an election in November and Americans will make their voices heard to hold their elected leaders accountable for their actions.

The village will go back to its work, like always. There will never be a wolf in our elections. Just a boy screaming about it for attention.

By Dan Vicuna

Subscribe now

Share

I’ll admit it: I’ve been hooked on Love Island USA. Like millions of other viewers, I spent time debating who was genuine, who was playing a game, and who deserved another chance. Every recoupling, every bombshell, and every awkward conversation became fuel for social media, podcasts, and group chats.

But somewhere between Casa Amor and Movie Night, I realized Love Island accidentally offers a lesson for Congress. Not about romance, but about accountability.

The success of Love Island isn’t just built on beautiful people in swimsuits. It’s built on something much more familiar to anyone who follows politics: trust. Contestants are constantly trying to convince one another, and the public, that they’re being honest. The audience isn’t just watching relationships develop. They’re evaluating character, often deciding who is authentic, who is manipulating the narrative, and who deserves to stay.

That’s not so different from what our democracy experiences.

The difference is that in the villa, actions usually have consequences.

When contestants tell different stories to different people, Movie Night exposes them. When they betray someone’s trust during Casa Amor, they’re forced to explain themselves. When America loses confidence in a contestant, viewers vote, and sometimes that person is sent home.

No system is perfect. Fans spent much of this season arguing that production gave some Islanders more favorable edits than others or protected certain contestants from criticism. But even those debates reveal something important: viewers care deeply that the rules are applied fairly because fairness is essential to trust.

Capitol Hill should pay attention to it.

We know when ethics complaints are filed. We know when members of Congress trade stocks despite public scrutiny. We know when campaign donors receive unusual access. We know when lobbyists shape legislation behind closed doors. Committee hearings are livestreamed. Oversight reports are published. Investigative journalists regularly uncover misconduct that would dominate headlines in almost any other democracy.

This year alone, Congress has continued to wrestle with questions surrounding Supreme Court ethics, executive branch oversight, foreign influence, and money in politics. Americans haven’t been completely left in the dark, but not because transparency comes easily. Organizations like Common Cause, investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and countless advocates spend enormous time and resources forcing information into the public sphere.

But even when we succeed, the work is only half done. Too often, exposing misconduct is treated as the victory itself. Reports are released. Hearings are held. Headlines are written. Then the political system moves on with few meaningful consequences. Exposure has become the finish line instead of the starting point. That’s where Love Island differs.

Movie Night doesn’t exist simply to embarrass contestants. It exists because information changes the game. Once everyone has seen the receipts, pretending nothing happened is no longer an option. Relationships shift. Trust is rebuilt or broken. The villa moves forward because accountability requires action, not simply awareness.

Congress, by contrast, often treats transparency as though it’s enough.

An ethics investigation is announced. A report is released. A hearing goes viral. A news cycle comes and goes. Then everyone moves on.

The American people are left wondering what accountability looks like.

That’s particularly relevant today, as debates continue over presidential ethics, the use of executive power, campaign finance, judicial accountability, and congressional oversight. Across each of these issues, we are repeatedly told to trust institutions because the facts have been uncovered. But facts alone don’t restore public confidence. Institutions earn trust when they demonstrate that rules apply equally, regardless of political party, wealth, or power.

Perhaps that’s why so many people have become cynical about politics. They don’t believe misconduct is hidden. They believe misconduct is tolerated.

Ironically, Love Island contestants often have stronger incentives to maintain public trust than elected officials. Islanders know that if viewers stop believing in them, they risk losing relationships, public support, or their place in the competition. Many members of Congress, by contrast, represent safely drawn districts where elections are effectively decided before most voters ever cast a ballot. Unlimited campaign spending and hyper-partisan politics further weaken the connection between public opinion and political consequences.

We all deserve better.

Reality television isn’t a model for governing, nor should it be. But Love Island understands something Congress sometimes forgets: accountability isn’t about public shaming. It’s about reinforcing trust. People are willing to forgive mistakes when they believe the rules are fair and everyone is held to the same standard.

That’s the real lesson from the villa. Not every contestant survives Movie Night. Not every relationship survives Casa Amor. But everyone understands that actions have consequences.

Congress doesn’t need more viral hearings. It doesn’t need better sound bites or longer investigations. It needs stronger ethics laws, meaningful oversight, campaign finance reforms, and institutions willing to enforce the rules consistently.

Because transparency, by itself, has never been enough.

Yet somehow, and regrettably so, the Islanders figured that out long before many congressional members have.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

· Postponement is Not Enough for Blanche Nomination

· GOP Makes it Easier to Insider Trade, Hard to Hold Accountable

· Court Hits Pause on Billionare-Backed Media Takeover Following Common Cause Advocacy Campaign

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Share

Subscribe now

If you weren’t paying attention to Congress last week, let me catch you up.

Confirmation hearings are often political theater. Senators perform for cable news. Nominees rehearse polished talking points. Everyone leaves claiming victory. But every so often, something slips through the script. A question lands. Contradiction emerges. Someone forgets they’re supposed to be acting.

That’s what happened during Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing.

Watching it, I couldn’t stop thinking about The Wizard of Oz.

Remember the moment Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion finally meet the all-powerful Wizard? He’s larger than life. His baritone fills the room. Smoke rises. Fire shoots across the stage. Theatrics. Performance. Drama. He’s presented as someone whose authority should never be questioned.

Then Toto pulls back the curtain.

The booming voice isn’t backed by courage or wisdom. It’s just a man frantically pulling levers, hoping no one notices. A regular human. The hearing felt remarkably similar.

Two weeks ago, I argued that Blanche’s history should disqualify him from becoming America’s chief law enforcement officer. This time, his own testimony—and the testimony of survivors—made the case even more clear.

The issue wasn’t simply Jeffrey Epstein. The issue wasn’t even just transparency. It was credibility.

Throughout the hearing, senators repeatedly questioned Blanche about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) handling of the Epstein files and its relationship with survivors. When Senator Durbin asked whether he would personally meet with Epstein survivors who had traveled to D.C. to be heard, Blanche initially cited legal complications, despite nothing prohibiting a Department attorney, including the Attorney General, from meeting with represented parties if their counsel is present or gives explicit consent When pressed, Blanche indicated emphasized that the Department remained willing to engage with survivors.

But that’s not what the Epstein survivors are saying.

Epstein survivor Dani Bensky testified that she and other survivors, along with their attorneys, spent months seeking a meeting with Blanche and DOJ leadership. According to Bensky, the Department ignored those requests for eight months, only indicating the day before the hearing that Blanche would meet if survivors’ attorneys were present.

The contradiction wasn’t just awkward. It was revealing, especially after Republican Senator Thom Tillis made clear that meeting with Epstein survivors would determine whether Blanche earned his vote. “I expect that meeting to occur before I’m willing to vote out of this committee,” Tillis said. “I’m trying to get to yes, and this is a very important part of getting to yes.”

Suddenly, the meeting that seemed legally complicated became politically urgent. Blanche finally gave in and agreed to meet with the Epstein survivors. That’s the part that should concern every person, regardless of party.

As someone who has spent years advocating alongside survivors of sexual violence—and as a survivor myself—I know that listening isn’t a favor. It’s the bare minimum.

I’ve written for years about what happens when institutions protect powerful people instead of believing those who come forward. Survivor-centered approaches begin with the understanding that people deserve dignity, transparency, and meaningful engagement; not only when it’s politically convenient, but because that’s what justice requires.

The Attorney General is not simply another cabinet official. The Attorney General is America’s chief law enforcement officer. The person occupying that office makes decisions that shape whether communities trust the justice system, whether civil rights are protected, and whether victims believe their government is willing to hear them.

Those decisions aren’t measured only by legal briefs. They’re measured by judgment. By integrity. By whether your first instinct is to protect institutions or protect people.

Throughout the hearing, Blanche repeatedly emphasized transparency. He defended the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files, describing the DOJ’s review of more than six million pages of records as an unprecedented undertaking. He acknowledged that errors occurred in roughly 1% of the redactions and accepted responsibility, while insisting the Department moved quickly to correct them. Blanche also maintained that the Department remained committed to investigating any credible leads involving Epstein or his associates and pursuing prosecutions wherever the facts and the law permitted.

Transparency matters, but transparency without accountability is little more than public relations. Releasing documents only after Congress compels you to do so isn’t leadership, and agreeing to meet with survivors only after a confirmation vote hangs in the balance doesn’t inspire confidence. Whether prompted by moral conviction or political necessity, survivors should never have to rely on confirmation politics simply to be heard.

No one expected Blanche to walk into that hearing and become a critic of President Trump. That was never the standard. The question before the Senate was whether he demonstrated the independence, judgment, and moral clarity expected of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Instead, what many Americans watched was someone whose answers appeared to shift as the political calculus changed.

That should concern Republicans just as much as Democrats. The integrity of the Department of Justice cannot depend on whose interests are at stake. One day, the survivors seeking justice may not fit neatly within anyone’s political coalition. One day, the people asking for accountability may be individuals those in power would rather ignore. An Attorney General’s obligation shouldn’t change based on political convenience. Justice cannot be conditional, and empathy cannot be transactional. Survivors should never have to wait until a senator’s swing vote is on the line before someone in power decides they’re worth hearing.

In The Wizard of Oz, pulling back the curtain didn’t create the truth; it simply exposed what had been there all along. That’s what these confirmation hearings did for Blanche. The question before the Senate isn’t whether he has the legal experience to serve as Attorney General. It’s whether what we saw behind the curtain reflects the judgment, integrity, and independence the office demands.

Simply put: it doesn’t.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• Americans are Hurting, President’s Speech Ignores Their Needs

• Court Slams Blanche’s Illegal Deal, Proving He’s Unfit for AG

• Trump Fires Entire Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission in Desperate Bid to Undermine Midterms

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

The federal government has an alphabet soup of agencies that can be confusing. It’s not quite A to Z, but between the ACF (Administration for Children and Families) and the WTB (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau), there are a whole lot of letters to keep track of.

Although it’s easy to be cynical about the size of government and the number of agencies, the Trump Administration’s attack on them can shine a bright spotlight on the reasons why they matter. We saw one of these examples just last week. On July 9, President Trump fired two of members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and demanded the resignation of a third. As a result of the additional resignation of a member earlier this year, this leaves the agency with no members.

Why do the letters E-A-C matter? The EAC is an independent and bipartisan agency that provides support to the election administrators across the country who actually run our elections. It includes two Democrats and two Republicans who are appointed by the president and approved by the U.S. Senate. Any guidance they provide must be approved by at least three members, which means that anything they do requires bipartisan support. The agency identifies best practices on topics like community engagement, election technology, language access, military and overseas voting, and poll worker training. It also provides significant support on the technical aspects of elections like testing equipment and certifying voting systems. In addition, the agency makes sure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately by auditing the use of federal funds that are distributed to election officials. In a nutshell, this is an important agency with technical expertise to support sound election administration.

President Trump’s unprecedented attack on this independent agency is the latest desperate and futile attempt to interfere with the election. With approval ratings that are somewhere between waiting in line at the DMV and head lice, the president is once again trying to undermine confidence in our elections rather than answering to voters for his disastrous policies. Courts have already shut down his previous illegal efforts to control the EAC. This included striking down Trump’s executive order attempting to force the EAC to implement a “show your papers” requirement for voter registration and block funding for states that don’t impose such a requirement.

Now that there are no commissioners, what could Trump do with the EAC? Not much. Without commissioners, the agency can’t make new policies. While there have been occasional EAC shenanigans in the past, they failed. In 2016, the executive director allowed several states to require the kind of “show your papers” restrictions on voter registration Trump wants, but a court shut that effort down. And we’re ready to take legal action against any similar attempts to subvert our elections. When it comes to courtroom battles over elections, the Trump Administration has a losing streak that would make the 1962 Mets blush. If it comes down to it, we’ll do our part to extend that losing streak even further.

By Dan Vicuna

Reading Between The Lines Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• Trump Fires Entire Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission in Desperate Bid to Undermine Midterms

• SCOTUS Preserves the Right to Vote by Mail

• Voting Rights Groups Sue to Block National Voter Database

• Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump on Mail-in Ballots

Subscribe now

Share

There was a time when Thursday nights belonged to Scandal. Every week at 9 p.m. ET, some of my closest friends and I would gather with oversized glasses of red wine, settle into our spots on the couch, and lose ourselves in Shonda Rhimes’ world. Like so many Americans, we obsessed over every scene, every argument, every dramatic read, and every scandal. And when the episode ended, the conversation was just getting started until we quickly pivoted to How to Get Away with Murder.

There’s a reason Scandal became one of television’s defining political dramas. Viewers came for Olivia Pope—her brilliance, impeccable style, commanding stride, and iconic “It’s handled”—as well as the White House intrigue. But the show’s most revealing character wasn’t the president or even Olivia herself. It was Cyrus Beene.

Cyrus understood power better than anyone else in the room. As White House Chief of Staff, he believed his highest calling was protecting the presidency at all costs. Rules became flexible. Institutions became expendable. Ethics became negotiable. Every questionable decision could be justified if it preserved the administration.

Cyrus wasn’t dangerous because he was loud. He was dangerous because he convinced himself loyalty to one man was the same thing as serving the country.

For two years, Blanche served as Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney. Today, after serving as Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General, the Senate is being asked to confirm him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. That journey, from defending one client to overseeing justice for more than 340 million Americans, should prompt one simple question: Can someone whose career has become defined by loyalty to one man faithfully serve an office that demands loyalty to the Constitution? The answer, put simply, is no.

The Attorney General doesn’t exist to protect a president. The Attorney General exists to protect the rule of law. That distinction has become increasingly difficult to recognize under Blanche’s leadership at the Department of Justice.

During his confirmation process as Deputy Attorney General, Blanche declined to commit to recusing himself from matters involving the very criminal prosecutions he had personally defended against as Trump’s lawyer. That decision alone raised serious concerns about whether he understood that public trust in the Justice Department depends as much on avoiding the appearance of impropriety as avoiding impropriety itself. Since then, those concerns have only deepened.

Under Blanche’s leadership, the Department has experienced an extraordinary wave of resignations, whistleblower allegations, judicial criticism, and ethical controversies. Career prosecutors have stepped down rather than carry out directives they believed compromised their professional obligations. Federal judges have repeatedly questioned the accuracy of representations made by Department attorneys. Experienced public servants have found themselves sidelined after refusing to bend to political pressure.

Any administration can survive a controversy. It’s the pattern that should concern us. Because patterns reveal priorities. And the pattern emerging from Blanche’s Justice Department suggests an institution increasingly focused on protecting presidential power while retreating from one of its most important responsibilities: protecting civil rights. That may be the most overlooked part of this confirmation debate.

Much has been written about investigations targeting organizations that promote racial justice, civic participation, and diversity initiatives. Those actions deserve scrutiny. But the more revealing question is what the Department has chosen not to prioritize.

Where has the urgency been in protecting voting rights? Where is the aggressive enforcement of laws prohibiting housing discrimination, employment discrimination, disability discrimination, and anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination? Where is the Justice Department that once viewed safeguarding constitutional rights as one of its central missions rather than an inconvenience?

The Justice Department doesn’t abandon civil rights only by filing the wrong lawsuits. Sometimes it abandons civil rights by choosing not to bring the right ones. That silence carries consequences.

The Department’s mission is not simply to prosecute crime. It is also to ensure that the promises embedded in our Constitution and civil rights laws remain meaningful for everyone—not just those with political influence.

Equally troubling are allegations that the Department has attempted to redirect taxpayer funds in ways critics argue circumvent Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

The real scandal isn’t just the nearly $1.8 billion price tag. It’s the precedent. Our Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse. When an administration attempts to create a multibillion-dollar compensation fund for politically selected claimants without clear congressional authorization, the issue is no longer simply about spending. It’s about whether the executive branch can appropriate public money by settlement rather than by statute. That strikes at the heart of the separation of powers.

Then there is the question of judgment.

Blanche’s personal interview of Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted child sex trafficker reportedly seeking clemency from President Trump, blurred lines that should remain unmistakably clear.

The Attorney General’s credibility depends on public confidence that prosecutorial decisions are guided by evidence and law, not personal relationships or political calculations. When the president’s former personal attorney becomes the face of such decisions, public confidence inevitably suffers.

This is why Todd Blanche’s confirmation cannot be treated as another partisan fight. The Senate isn’t being asked whether Blanche is an accomplished lawyer. He is. The Senate is being asked whether he has demonstrated the independence the office requires. Those are two different qualifications.

Scandal worked because Cyrus Beene believed institutions existed to preserve power.

Our democracy depends on institutions that restrain it.

The Department of Justice was never intended to function as the president’s personal law firm. It exists to ensure that every American is subject to the same laws and protected by the same Constitution.

The Attorney General has one client. It isn’t the president. It never should be.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• Common Cause Calls on Gov. Whitmer to Bring National Guard Home

• Thousands Demand Sen. Tillis to Block Blanche

• ICYMI: Conservative Rejection of Blanche is Growing

• Birthright Protection Remains, But Attacks Continue

• SCOTUS Preserves the Right to Vote by Mail

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Subscribe now

Share

Watch enough episodes and you’ll eventually see everything, or so we’re told. But anyone who has ever been edited, misrepresented, or reduced to a storyline knows that’s not how it necessarily works. More information doesn’t automatically produce empathy or understanding. Sometimes it simply creates more opportunities to shape a narrative – even problematic ones.

Congress would do well to remember that as it debates the future of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FISA sounds like one of those Washington acronyms that belongs in a policy briefing rather than a kitchen-table conversation. In reality, FISA raises fundamental questions about privacy, civil liberties, and democratic accountability. At the center of the current debate is Section 702, a surveillance authority that allows the government to collect communications of non-U.S. persons abroad but can also sweep up Americans’ communications in the process.

Organizations like Common Cause argue that any extension of these authorities should come with meaningful safeguards, including a warrant requirement before searching Americans’ communications, closure of the data broker loophole, stronger transparency measures, and greater oversight. Those concerns are not rooted in opposition to national security. They stem from a simple recognition: surveillance powers do not exist outside of politics, bias, or human error. This form of surveillance poses a threat to privacy and core civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and association.

Here’s the truth: the federal government surveilled civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., under the banner of national security. Intelligence agencies monitored anti-war activists, labor organizers, and Black liberation movements. Following September 11, Muslim communities were subjected to sweeping surveillance programs that treated entire populations as suspicious. More recently, activists connected to the Movement for Black Lives have raised concerns about government monitoring of racial justice protests.

The pattern is not merely historical. Recent disclosures involving Section 702 have revealed surveillance practices that swept in the communications of racial justice protesters, journalists, and other Americans, renewing longstanding concerns that tools justified in the name of national security can be used to monitor dissent, chill free expression, and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. While COINTELPRO officially ended decades ago, its underlying logic remains familiar: identify perceived threats, gather intelligence, and use that information to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” movements seeking political and social change.

That history is one reason the current debate over FISA has become intertwined with concerns about who oversees America’s intelligence apparatus.

Bill Pulte’s appointment has raised legitimate questions for many advocates and lawmakers. The person entrusted with overseeing some of the government’s most powerful surveillance authorities matters. Leadership matters. Judgment matters. Experience matters. Reports that Jay Clayton could emerge as an alternative have led some observers to ask whether a different nominee might make extending these authorities more palatable.

Maybe. But focusing exclusively on the cast risks missing the plot.

Reality television fans know the difference between fixing the cast and fixing the format. Sometimes replacing one controversial cast member improves a show. Sometimes the problem is baked into the structure itself. FISA presents a similar challenge.

Bill Pulte may be one reason many advocates are sounding the alarm. He has a known track record of weaponizing privileged information to target President Trump’s political enemies and is currently under investigation for doing the same. Yet, Pulte is hardly the only one. Surveillance authorities do not become acceptable simply because a different nominee occupies the chair. If support for Section 702 rises or falls entirely on who oversees it, that is an argument for stronger guardrails, not weaker ones.

Having experienced both reality television and political advocacy, I’ve learned that observation is often mistaken for objectivity. Audiences assume that access to more footage produces a more accurate understanding of a person. The opposite can be true. Hours of recorded material can be condensed into a storyline that emphasizes conflict, minimizes context, or reinforces preconceived narratives. Surveillance can operate much the same way.

Data does not interpret itself. Human beings decide which communications deserve further review. Human beings determine what constitutes suspicious activity. Human beings decide which communities warrant additional scrutiny. Increasingly, some of these judgments may be informed by artificial intelligence systems. While the public does not know the full extent to which AI is used to analyze FISA-collected data, it is likely playing a growing role in identifying patterns, prioritizing information, and flagging potential concerns. Yet AI does not eliminate human judgment; it reflects the assumptions, priorities, and biases embedded in the systems that people create and deploy. Those decisions do not occur outside of culture, politics, or prejudice.

Supporters of broad surveillance authorities often frame the debate as a choice between civil liberties and public safety. That framing misses the real question before Congress. The issue is not whether intelligence agencies should have tools to address legitimate threats. The issue is whether those tools should operate with meaningful checks on their power.

The purpose of oversight is not to protect us only from leaders we distrust. It is to prevent any leader from exercising extraordinary power without accountability.

That is why reforms matter.

A warrant requirement before searching Americans’ communications. Closing the data broker loophole that allows agencies to purchase sensitive personal information without judicial oversight. Greater transparency around how surveillance authorities are used. Meaningful accountability when agencies exceed their authority. These are not radical demands. They are the kinds of safeguards that should accompany any power capable of reaching so deeply into people’s lives.

The conversation around FISA often gets buried beneath procedural fights and political maneuvering. Yet at its core, the issue remains remarkably simple. Expanding surveillance powers without strengthening accountability requires the public to place extraordinary trust in institutions that have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity for overreach.

That is a difficult proposition, particularly for communities that have spent generations under disproportionate scrutiny.

Because surveillance is never only about what is collected. It is also about who is watching, who gets watched, and who bears the consequences when power operates without sufficient limits.

You can help Common Cause on this issue by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121, give them your name, your zip code, and if you know, who you will leave a message for. If you don’t know, you can ask them to help you be directed to the right office.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• As Blanche and Trump Visit, A Reminder to the Hill: “Blanche Protected Trump on Epstein”

• Illegal Immunity Deal Proves Todd Blanche is Unfit to Serve as Attorney General

• Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration’s $1.776 Billion Slush Fund While the Case Continues

• Voting Rights Groups on June Election: Don’t Wait, Vote Early!

• Watchdog Group to Block Blanche’s Nomination to Attorney General Post

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Share

Subscribe now

There are certain places in this life where conspiracy theories find a comfortable home. These include Thanksgiving with your extended family when that special cousin shows up. The end of the bar where the loud and confidently ignorant guy is slurring his words. Supermarket tabloids located in that spot in line where you’re about to reach for the Snickers you don’t really need. The History Channel after it shifted its focus from history to aliens. You get the idea.

Although the Supreme Court has failed Americans a lot recently when it comes to our fundamental rights, there’s something about the place that makes you think…or maybe just hope…that it’s immune to the most ridiculous conspiracy theories we’re used to hearing and reading in those other venues. Unfortunately, one snuck through in a case called Watson v. RNC and it might have gained traction with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

In the 2020 election, local officials across the country counted votes methodically and carefully. Big and overwhelmingly Democratic cities in swing states took a little longer to submit their vote totals because of their large populations and making sure that every mail-in ballot was counted. As a consequence of basic math, Donald Trump’s early – but ultimately illusory – leads began to vanish and he lost almost all of the most closely contested states. As we know, he famously did not take this loss graciously. One target of his post-election tantrum was mail voting. By his logic, a system of voting that he and millions of other Americans used safely and effectively must be suspect because vote totals changed when these votes were counted. In a part of this story that is too dumb to make up, he was reassured that his skepticism of mail voting was warranted in a conversation he had with famed democracy champion Vladimir Putin.

Fast forward several years and baseless paranoia about mail voting continues to be the focus of President Trump. Just like that guy at the end of the bar who swears that Bigfoot is two counties over. That’s how we get the Republican National Committee suing to stop allowing ballots postmarked (that means received by the post office, officially) by Election Day to count just because USPS delivers them after Election Day.

But at its core, the attacks on mail-in voting, and when to count mail-in ballots, are wrapped up in the delusional thoughts of a conspiracy theorist.

The reality is that mail-in voting is safe and fine. No boogeyman. No grand conspiracy.

The Supreme Court should ignore the yelling conspiracy theorist, just like you ignore that cousin at Thanksgiving.

Reading Between The Lines Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• The Supreme Court Just Gutted the Voting Rights Act — Here’s What It Means for You

• After Callais, the Fight Turns to the States

• Voting Rights Groups Sue to Block National Voter Database

• Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump on Mail-in Ballots

Share

Subscribe now

USPS Funding Crisis Threatens Vote by Mail Ahead of 2026 Midterms

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is warning it could face serious financial trouble as soon as this October, without action from Congress. That would be a crisis for communities across the country — and a direct threat to voters who rely on the mail to cast their ballots.

How Congress Created the USPS Financial Crisis

This problem didn’t come out of nowhere.

Congress created the USPS funding crisis by forcing the Postal Service to operate under financial rules and service obligations private companies do not face, including a 2006 law that required USPS to pre-fund decades of retiree health benefits on an accelerated timeline. The agency has lost money almost every year since, and Congress has been slow to pass the reforms needed to stabilize it. Now, instead of taking the legislative action needed to keep it running, lawmakers are standing by while one of the country’s most essential public services inches toward collapse.

That is unacceptable.

Why Vote by Mail Depends on a Funded Postal Service

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail every election, including President Trump just a few months ago. Seniors, voters with disabilities, rural voters, military and overseas voters, and working people all depend on a reliable postal service to make their voices heard. For many voters, vote by mail isn’t just a convenience; it’s the only way they can participate in our democracy.

Who Is Most at Risk If USPS Collapses

The Postal Service reaches every community in the United States, no matter how remote, rural, or costly to serve. That universal service promise is what makes USPS different from private carriers, and why weakening it would fall hardest on people and places that already face barriers to access. Rural communities, seniors, veterans, low-income families, and communities of color rely on USPS for medications, benefits, bills, voter information, and other essential mail.

USPS is more than a mail carrier. It is part of our democracy infrastructure.

Watson v. RNC: How a Supreme Court Case Makes This More Urgent

The need for a reliable Postal Service is even more urgent as the Supreme Court considers Watson v. RNC, a case that could reshape how states handle mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive shortly afterward. If the Court rules against these grace periods, voters in affected states would need to get their ballots in earlier — making dependable mail service and voter education even more critical.

What Congress Must Do to Protect USPS and Voters

For years, President Trump and his allies have attacked vote by mail, pushed efforts to weaken the Postal Service, and promoted privatization schemes that would make this public service less reliable and less accessible. Now, as the country prepares for the 2026 midterms, Congress must act before USPS funding problems create delays, confusion, or uncertainty for voters.

Trust is the foundation of our elections. Voters need to know that when they return a ballot by mail, it will arrive on time and be counted. Election officials need a reliable Postal Service to deliver election mail safely and efficiently.

Congress created this crisis, and Congress must fix it. Lawmakers must fully fund the USPS, protect it from political attacks and privatization schemes, and make sure every voter can depend on the mail.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on Bluesky, X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

If you’ve watched enough reality tv, you begin to recognize the formula. Every show needs a villain.

Sometimes that villain is obvious. Other times, they are manufactured. A stray comment becomes evidence. A disagreement becomes a pattern. Before long, viewers are watching a version of events that has been carefully edited into a story about one person. Whether that person actually deserves the role becomes almost secondary. What matters is that the cast, the audience, and the producers have someone to focus on.

Watching the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing, Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate, Part II, I couldn’t help but think about that process. Not because Congress and reality television are identical, but because both understand the power of a compelling antagonist.

The hearing was ostensibly about the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the civil rights organization known for tracking extremist groups and litigating civil rights cases. Yet as the hearing unfolded, it became increasingly difficult to view it as a serious exercise in congressional oversight. Instead, it felt like something else entirely: an effort to construct a public narrative about who should be viewed as dangerous, credible, and worthy of suspicion.

That distinction matters because congressional oversight serves an important purpose in our democracy. Ideally, it is used to investigate waste, fraud, abuse, and genuine threats to public interest. It is supposed to help lawmakers uncover facts and hold powerful actors accountable. Oversight should not be weaponized to punish organizations for their mission, advocacy, or political viewpoints.

That concern was at the center of the letter I recently submitted for the record on behalf of Common Cause. In it, I argued that the hearing is not fundamentally about the SPLC at all. Instead, it reflects a broader trend: the weaponization of government against civil rights advocates, groups fighting extremism, and watchdogs like Common Cause holding power accountable.

One of the most striking moments came when Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a longtime supporter of Donald Trump, invoked her uncle’s legacy while criticizing SPLC and suggesting it is time to move beyond “Black Power.” The moment was remarkable not simply because of who delivered the message, but because it highlighted an ongoing debate about how we remember social movements and who gets to define their legacy.

For many Americans, the phrase “Black Power“ has always been treated as controversial. This comes despite the fact that the term emerged from a historical context in which Black communities were demanding dignity, representation, and protection from systemic discrimination while preserving self-reliance and self-determination. Dr. King’s work is often remembered today through a selective lens that emphasizes unity and reconciliation while downplaying the discomfort his activism generated at the time. Hearing his legacy invoked as part of an argument against contemporary civil rights advocacy underscored just how contested these histories remain.

The hearing also unfolded against a backdrop that raises broader questions about congressional priorities. At a time when Americans are expressing concerns about corruption, abuses of power, threats to democratic institutions, and declining trust in government, Congress chose to hold a second hearing targeting a nonprofit organization. Whatever one thinks about SPLC, it is fair to ask whether this represents the most urgent use of congressional oversight authority.

That question is especially important because we are increasingly living in a political environment where accusation is treated as evidence and investigation is treated as confirmation. House Republicans often speak as though the existence of an allegation, lawsuit, or indictment is itself proof of wrongdoing. Yet that standard tends to be applied selectively. Political allies are often granted patience, context, and the presumption of innocence, while perceived opponents are subjected to public scrutiny long before facts have been fully established.

Reality television thrives on this dynamic. Anyone who has watched The Traitors knows how quickly suspicion can become certainty, especially for Black, Brown, queer, or trans people. A contestant becomes the focus of attention, and every subsequent action is interpreted through that lens. The group stops asking whether the accusation is accurate and begins searching for additional reasons to justify the conclusion it has already reached.

Perhaps that is why this hearing felt so familiar. It wasn’t simply because Congress was criticizing a civil rights organization. It was because the hearing followed a storytelling formula that viewers of reality television know well. A villain was identified. A narrative was constructed. Evidence was presented through that lens. The audience was encouraged to draw a predetermined conclusion.

The problem is that democracy requires something more than good television. It requires a willingness to follow facts where they lead, even when those facts complicate a preferred narrative. Oversight should be about uncovering truth, not assigning roles.

Reality television can survive a bad villain edit. Democratic institutions cannot.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• Watchdog Group to Block Blanche’s Nomination to Attorney General Post

• “Blanche Protected Trump on Epstein” Mobile Billboard Launches Against Todd Blanche

• Common Cause Statement on Trump Slush Fund Reports

• Common Cause Launches Public Interest Test for Next Attorney General Nominee

Preston Mitchum is the Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. He was also a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard.

Desperate to turn the Department of Justice (DOJ) into his personal law firm, President Donald Trump has named Todd Blanche, the number two at the DOJ, as acting Attorney General.

Now, after weeks in the acting role, it’s clear Blanche is auditioning for the permanent role after Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired.

Here are five things to know about him.

1. Blanche’s greatest career achievement is serving as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Before becoming deputy attorney general, Blanche was President Trump’s criminal defense lawyer and represented him in cases including the New York hush-money trial that saw Trump convicted of 34 felonies, the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, and the 2020 election interference case in D.C.

This also makes Blanche the first acting attorney general to have also been a personal criminal defense lawyer to a sitting president, creating potential conflicts of interest .

Normally, Attorney General candidates aren’t that familiar with a sitting president’s criminal history

Blanche has been one of President Trump’s fixers for years, and now he’s using the DOJ to solve the President’s problems.

2. Blanche has six-figure conflicts of interest.

As deputy attorney general, Blanche was required to part with any cryptocurrency assets within 90 days of his confirmation. Yet, reports indicate he owned at least $159,000 of crypto-related assets when he called for an end to ongoing investigations into crypto companies.

3. Blanche attacked the independence of the judicial branch

As deputy attorney general, Blanche publicly declared a “war” on judges who ruled against the Trump administration in legal cases.

Again, not something typical of candidates for U.S. Attorney General. That’s why Blanche is likely to fail Common Cause’s public interest test for Attorney General if nominated for the full job.

The New York Bar Association, the state where Blanche studied and practiced law, denounced Blanche’s attacks on the judicial branch.

4. Blanche was the architect behind the DOJ purges.

During his time at the Department of Justice, Blanche removed hundreds of highly experienced prosecutors who previously worked on special counsel investigations with Jack Smith and, notably, on the January 6 prosecutions.

By removing those who have ties to criminal investigations of President Trump, Blanche sought to eliminate any potential DOJ opposition to the president’s policies.

5. Blanche is opening ridiculous investigations of Trump’s perceived enemies.

Blanche is doing Trump’s dirty work without fail. Whether it’s an investigation of E. Jean Carroll, who has accused the president of sexual assault; an indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center that was widely condemned; or any number of these overtly political investigations listed here.

It’s clear Blanche still thinks he’s Trump’s lawyer, not the people’s.

As the nation’s top law enforcement official, the Attorney General has a duty to serve the American people objectively, regardless of their politics. Todd Blanche has failed to demonstrate a capacity to put the public interest above the political whims of his President. We deserve an Attorney General who will follow the rule of law and protect every American, regardless of who they voted for or their political party.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

Welcome to Reading Between The Lines!

Hey, I’m Dan Vicuna, Common Cause Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation. I’ve been part of this team at Common Cause for years, helping people fight for fair maps and working on Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court refused to curb partisan gerrymandering in 2019.

I’ve started this newsletter to drill down on voting and fair representation issues in a way that is outside of the way the press, and the lawsuits, come at these issues. The press, with its “horse race” viewpoints, rarely dig out what changes to voting and fair representation mean for people like you and me. And the lawsuits argue about technical processes that aren’t always clear to the public. So welcome to Reading Between the Lines, where we hope to do just that.

Our first topic is the big one. Louisiana v. Callais.

In Callais, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision, putting a stop to decades of progress in voting rights by making it nearly impossible to challenge discriminatory voting maps. Instead of looking at the effect of a map, the Court changed the legal standard by making plaintiffs prove map drawers’ intent to discriminate. Even worse, it makes voters prove that politicians were motivated by race and not the partisan gerrymandering the Supreme Court greenlit in Rucho.

What politicians are dumb enough to say, “I’m drawing this map to hurt Black people” when they can say they are drawing the maps to tilt the playing field in their party’s favor? This is a nearly impossible standard to meet.

The decision also shows how out of touch the conservative majority of the Supreme Court are with the reality or racism in America. Pointing out that the Voting Rights Act “was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers,” the dissent tore into the majority. Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor called out how disingenuous the majority opinion is: “The majority claims only to be ‘updat[ing]’ our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks…But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate the law” so it can’t remedy even a “classic example” of vote dilution.

The result is that Callais gives a shot of steroids to partisan gerrymandering by allowing politicians to manipulate maps to advantage their political party to their hearts’ content, devastating the voting power of communities of color along the way. This has been a key strategy of the Trump Administration in its authoritarian campaign to manipulate maps through mid-decade redistricting and the reason why we are implementing our fairness principles to fight back.

Although Callais is a significant setback for voting rights in this country, we can fight back. Congress must finally do its job and pass a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering so politicians can’t use it as an excuse to discriminate. We must also fight for the passage of state voting rights acts that enforce protections against racial discrimination in voting because Congress keeps failing to act and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is actively hostile.

Watch this space for more details on how Common Cause is going to lead this fight back for minority representation throughout America, including new work on the post-Callais world we are in.

Reading Between The Lines Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• The Supreme Court Just Gutted the Voting Rights Act — Here’s What It Means for You

• After Callais, the Fight Turns to the States

• Voting Rights Groups Sue to Block National Voter Database

• Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump on Mail-in Ballots

Subscribe now

Share

Welcome to Pop Congress: Congress Has Always Been Reality TV

By Preston Mitchum, Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause

There’s a certain type of person who proudly says, ‘I don’t watch reality TV.’ Often, those same people also say, ‘I don’t do politics.’ And whenever I hear either phrase, I think: yes, you do. You just don’t recognize the ways you’re already participating.

Because whether you’re watching cast members fight over loyalty on Bravo, VH1, or MTV, or members of Congress perform outrage during a hearing, you are watching the same things unfold: arguments, ego, manipulation, relationships, scandals, public image, betrayal, and survival. And, occasionally, staying season-after-season even with minimal storylines.

One usually just has better lighting.

I’m Preston Mitchum, Senior Director of Legislative Affairs at Common Cause. For 15 years, I’ve worked at the intersection of law, policy, and advocacy at organizations like The Trevor Project, Center for American Progress, and URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, helping push conversations around democracy, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive justice, and equity forward. I’ve spent years in congressional meetings, coalition strategy sessions, late-night policy negotiations, and movement spaces trying to make government work better for everyday people.

I’ve also been a cast member on Bravo’s Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard, have been featured on Andy Cohen’s Watch What Happens Live three times, and have attended the star-studded “BravoCon.”

So, trust me when I say I’m intimately familiar with Congress and reality television, and neither are nearly as different as people think.

Both rely on performance, reward attention, are fueled by conflict, and depend on who can build relationships, real or fake, fastest while keeping the audience mentally and emotionally invested. And both have people who mistake being loud for being effective or quiet for being boring. But beneath the chaos, there are real stakes.

When Congress fails to govern, people lose healthcare, voting rights, housing protections, and bodily autonomy. When elected officials prioritize viral moments over actual leadership, communities pay the price. And when people tune politics out altogether because it feels exhausting or inaccessible, democracy becomes something done to them instead of something shaped by them.

That’s part of why Common Cause wanted to create Pop Congress. Not to make politics feel “smaller,” but to make it feel more familiar to the everyday person.

Because most people already understand coalition drama and fake apologies. They understand power grabs, scapegoating, and selective accountability. They understand what it means when someone enters a room already committed to misunderstanding another person. This shouldn’t be hard to believe. After all, this country is led by a man who spent years turning conflict into primetime television on The Apprentice.

And frankly, pop culture, especially as a microcosm of society, often tells the truth about America and what we’re experiencing faster than Congress does.

Reality television, music, celebrity culture, memes, and social media all reveal who gets protected, who gets punished, who gets believed, and who gets discarded. Congress may write the laws, but pop culture often tells us how those laws will actually land in people’s lives, on-and-off camera.

So, every edition of Pop Congress will break down what’s happening on Capitol Hill through the lens of the culture surrounding it. And if we’re being honest? Some members of Congress already act like they’re filming reunions anyway, just with a less stylish wardrobe.

What Reality Show Is Congress Like Right Now?

Right now, Congress feels a lot like Summer House. Not because anyone’s having fun — despite Kyle constantly reminding us that “summer should be fun.” But because too many people are more committed to protecting the vibe than taking responsibility.

Far too many lawmakers are moving like Amanda and West right now: protecting access, preserving comfort, and prioritizing proximity to power over loyalty, accountability, and basic integrity. That’s what Congress increasingly feels like.

And ironically enough, the same institutions now threatening to hollow out Black political power, from Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections to cases like Louisiana v. Callais, move a lot like television networks that treat Black shows as disposable the moment they require real investment, protection, or patience. We’ve seen it with Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard, Sweet Life: Los Angeles, and Blood, Sweat & Heels, among others. Black audiences are celebrated when they generate buzz, culture, and profit, then abandoned the second institutions decide they’re no longer worth defending. That disposability mindset doesn’t just exist in entertainment. It’s embedded in our politics too.

Elected officials see extremism growing in real time. They watch democratic norms erode, witness colleagues enable chaos, and still choose political convenience over confrontation because honesty might disrupt relationships, reputations, or future opportunities.

Ciara, on the other hand, represents something healthier than the congressional makeup for West and Amanda. Clear boundaries. Direct communication. A refusal to pretend betrayal is acceptable just because acknowledging it makes others uncomfortable.

What resonated with so many viewers is that Ciara was never the source of dysfunction. Her reaction came after disrespect. Naming a problem is not the same thing as creating one.

The same dynamic exists in politics. The greatest danger to democracy is not the people speaking plainly about corruption, extremism, or institutional failure. The danger comes from those willing to accommodate harmful behavior to maintain access, avoid tension, or protect their own standing.

When accountability gets framed as “too much,” dysfunction wins.

The girls may be fighting, but democracy still needs people willing to stand on principle when everyone else is busy managing optics.

Pop Congress Roundup: What Common Cause Has Been Doing

Here’s some of the work Common Cause has been leading lately:

• People Win: TSA workers paid, no new ICE funding

• Common Cause calls on Congress to reclaim War Powers

• Five Stories: People who the SAVE Act would prevent from voting

• What Senators Are Saying about the Iran War

• Five Things We Could Pay for Instead of the Iran War

Share

Leave a comment

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is a stark reminder of something voters across the country are learning the hard way: we can no longer rely on federal protections alone to safeguard our right to vote.

By weakening protections against racial gerrymandering, the Court made it easier for politicians to draw voting maps that look neutral but quietly weaken the voices of communities of color. When that happens, certain voters have less of a say in who represents them, and that’s exactly how power gets skewed.

But states don’t have to sit back and accept this. Across the country, Common Cause has been leading the fight for years to pass state-level Voting Rights Acts — powerful tools that protect voters even when federal safeguards fall. In California, Colorado, and New York, our efforts are already making a real difference.

California: Setting the Standard

The California Voting Rights Act, passed in 2001, gave communities a powerful tool to fight back against unfair election systems.

The law makes it easier to challenge voting systems that weaken the voting power of communities of color without having to meet the high bar set by federal courts. That means local communities can actually fix problems when their votes aren’t being counted fairly.

Our work isn’t stopping there. This year, our proposed updates to California’s law would expand protections even further. This includes adding stronger safeguards against discrimination, improving language access for elections, and creating a process to review certain voting changes before they go into effect, so any potential harm can be stopped early in its tracks before it impacts voters.

New York: Fighting Back Against Barriers to the Ballot Box

In New York, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, passed in 2022, created one of the strongest state-level voting rights laws in the country.

It directly addresses modern voter suppression by banning practices that weaken the voting power of communities of color and requiring certain jurisdictions to get approval before making changes to voting rules. It also strengthens language access and gives voters clear ways to challenge unfair systems in court.

These protections make it possible for everyone to fairly make their voices heard and gives New Yorkers real power to stand up for their rights.

Colorado: One of the Strongest State VRAs Yet

Colorado intentionally passed its Voting Rights Act in 2025 to strengthen protections and fill the gaps left by weakening federal oversight.

The Colorado Voting Rights Act takes aim at unfair voting maps, increases transparency in how districts are drawn, and improves language access so more voters can fully participate. The law ensures that eligible voters in county jails can cast a ballot, removing a barrier that has kept countless people from making their voices heard and participating in elections. It also adds first-in-the-nation protections to ensure LGBTQ+ voters can cast a ballot without discrimination, helping make elections safer and more inclusive for everyone.

Colorado’s law focuses on making the system fair and accessible from the start, so fewer voters are left fighting to be heard after the fact.

The reality after Callais is clear: the fight for fair representation isn’t over; it is moving to the states.

That’s why Common Cause has been at the forefront of this movement —working alongside communities to pass laws that protect voters, strengthen representation, and hold power accountable.

The courts may be stepping back. Common Cause is stepping up.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on Bluesky, X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

What Is Louisiana v. Callais? Understanding the Gerrymandering Case Before the Supreme Court

Louisiana v. Callais may sound like another technical Supreme Court case, but it’s so much more than that. It’s about whether communities of color will continue to have fair representation in Congress or whether D.C. politicians will be given more freedom to draw people out of power. It’s about gerrymandering: drawing lines to benefit the politicians, not the people.

6 Ways a Bad Ruling in Louisiana v. Callais Could Harm Voters Across the Country

If the Supreme Court weakens protections against racial gerrymandering, the ripple effects won’t stop in Louisiana. Here’s what that could look like for voters across the country:

1. Maps that look neutral but silence communities
   A bad ruling could make it easier for lawmakers to draw districts that weaken the voting power of communities of color without explicitly saying so. The result is the same: fewer opportunities for voters to elect candidates who actually represent their communities.

2. A wave of mid-decade redistricting, with even more mid-decade pushes
   This isn’t hypothetical. Leaders in states like Texas have already revisited their maps at President Trump’s request to hold onto power in Washington. A weakened Voting Rights Act could open the door for a dozen or more states to follow suit, especially in the South’s “Black Belt” hurting communities the Voting Rights Act was meant to empower.

3. Fewer ways to fight back in court
   The Voting Rights Act has long been one of the strongest tools for challenging discriminatory maps. If the court undercuts it, voters will have far fewer options to hold map-drawers accountable when lines are rigged and their voices are silenced.

4. Power shifting further away from voters
   At its core, this case is about who gets to shape our future, and our democracy. A ruling that greenlights a nationwide racial gerrymander would give politicians even more control over election outcomes — before a single vote is even cast.

5. A deeper erosion of voting rights nationwide
   This case doesn’t stand alone. It comes after years of federal protections being chipped away. Weakening one of the last remaining safeguards against discriminatory maps would only accelerate that trend.

6. More pressure on states to step in
   As federal protections weaken, states are increasingly becoming the front line for defending voting rights. That’s why Common Cause has helped pass state Voting Rights Acts in places like New York, Colorado and Maryland, and why we’re pushing for more across the country.

How Common Cause Is Fighting to Protect Voting Rights Before and After the Ruling

At Common Cause, we’ve been preparing for exactly this kind of moment. Since the Supreme Court limited federal courts’ ability to stop partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause, we’ve focused on strengthening protections where we can. This includes passing state-level voting rights laws, advancing reforms that bring fairness and transparency to redistricting, and organizing to stop unfair maps before they take hold.

What You Can Do to Defend Fair Representation in Congress

This isn’t just about Louisiana. It’s about whether our democracy still reflects the people it’s supposed to serve — or whether the lines have already been drawn to decide the outcome.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on Bluesky, X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

Trump’s DOJ Is Trying to Build a National Voter Database — Here’s Why That’s Dangerous

Since the summer of 2025, President Trump’s Department of Justice has attempted to seize private voter data from at least 48 states and Washington D.C. Their goal is to compile this information into a national database to pick and choose who can vote and shield the Republican party from accountability at the ballot box.

These DOJ demands raise major concerns about the nationalization of elections and privacy rights. Storing sensitive information in a database would make it more susceptible to hackers and could be misused by the federal government to kick voters off their voter rolls.

Why Common Cause Is Suing the Trump Administration Over Voter Data

That is why Common Cause, along with several partners, is suing the Trump Administration to fight against the DOJ’s demands to create a national voter database.

Here is why we have filed a lawsuit:

1) States Run Elections, Not the President

The Constitution clearly says that states and Congress, not the president or executive branch, oversee elections. The DOJ’s demands are an extreme and dangerous overreach.

2) Voters Have a Right to the Ballot

A national voter database could intimidate citizens and others, making them hesitant to cast their ballots.

The DOJ plans to check this database through the Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) database. SAVE has a history of mistakenly labeling eligible voters as noncitizens. This could create unnecessary barriers and fear among voters.

3) The DOJ is Ignoring Privacy Measures

The DOJ’s demands ignore critical safety measures that are mandated by federal law to protect the public before the government collects any type of sensitive information.

Disregarding these protections could put everyone at risk.

This is why Common Cause is fighting to protect your right to privacy, data, and ensure our elections are fair and secure.

Help Protect Voting Rights: Stay Connected with Common Cause

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on Bluesky, X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

With President Trump recently announcing his intent to commit war crimes on social media, you’ve probably been hearing talk about the 25th Amendment and how it could remove him from office. Here’s what you need to know about it — and why Common Cause is calling for it to be used immediately.

What is the 25th Amendment and why does it exist?

The 25th Amendment lays out what should happen if a president can’t carry out the duties of office. It ensures there’s a clear plan to keep the government moving during times of crisis and instability.

It includes several key sections, like:

• If a president leaves office, the vice president takes over.

• If there’s no vice president, the president can nominate one with approval from Congress.

• If a president is unable to serve, like in the case of a medical procedure, the vice president steps in temporarily.

• Most importantly, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can declare a president unfit to serve, making the vice president acting president. If a president disagrees with this assertion, they can take it to Congress to make the final decision.

Has it ever been used?

Parts of the amendment have been used before, like to replace a vice president or to temporarily transfer power during medical procedures.

For example, in 1973, President Richard Nixon nominated Gerald Ford to serve as vice president after the position became vacant, and Congress confirmed him.

Another section has been used to temporarily transfer power when a president undergoes a medical procedure. Most recently, President Joe Biden briefly handed authority to Vice President Kamala Harris when he was under anesthesia.

However, the section that allows the vice president and cabinet to declare a president unfit has never been used before.

Why we’re calling for it:

Increasingly erratic statements from President Trump have raised urgent concerns about his fitness to lead. The 25th Amendment exists for exactly this moment: a safeguard for when the president’s actions put American lives, our country — and the world — at risk.

That’s why Common Cause is calling on the vice president and cabinet to act immediately. If they refuse, Congress must do its job and move forward with impeachment and removal.

This is more than politics. This is about protecting the country and ensuring no one — no matter how powerful — is above the law.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold those in power accountable, follow us on X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

A little over a year into President Trump’s second term, and with a 36% approval rating, it’s about time for a performance review. Let’s see how we got here.

Metric 1: Spending Our Tax Dollars. Result: Wasteful

From deploying the National Guard to our cities at a cost of $500 million, to a sad military parade costing $45 million, President Trump has not shied away from spending taxpayer money for his own interests.

Every time the president wants to go golfing at Mar-a-Lago, it costs an estimated $800,000 in taxpayer money. While the president travels on American taxpayer’s dime, people across the country are facing travel nightmares and higher fuel costs.

The President has also funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into an illegal war with Iran that Congress never approved and Americans don’t want. Just one week of the Iran war cost Americans an estimated $11.3 billion and the administration is requesting an additional $200 billion to further fund this war.

Instead of spending these funds on the Iran war, the taxpayer money could go towards food assistance and rental assistance programs. You can learn more about what we could fund instead of the Iran war here.

Metric 2: Hiring Decisions. Result: Questionable

President Trump’s habit of hiring his friends has not proven effective.

Remember Elon Musk’s stint with DOGE? From cuts to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, to firing 260,000 civil servants, to accessing our private information through the Treasury Department, Musk tried to run the federal government like one of his businesses.

Unelected billionaires shouldn’t be put in charge of the federal government. We worked to get Musk fired and succeeded. See more about our campaign to Fire Elon.

Then there’s Kristi Noem, who, as Secretary of Homeland Security, defended ICE’s aggressive behavior, cut training, and enabled terror and abuse in our communities. This led to deaths in immigration detention centers as well as that of Americans like Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

While we managed to get her fired, the fight isn’t over. We are still calling for no funding for ICE until there’s real reform.

Recently, our members successfully pressured Congress to get a funding deal done that ensured not one penny more for ICE but is funding TSA.

Metric 3: Improving Americans’ Lives. Result: Failure

President Trump campaigned on lowering prices, but the opposite has happened.

The illegal Iran war has already raised gas prices 34% across the country, with no end in sight. Energy prices are also affected and have risen by 7.62% and food, like coffee and off-season produce, has already risen in price by 2.18%.

This places a significant financial strain on Americans living paycheck to paycheck, who may have to decide between fuel or food.

The final result is President Trump is failing his responsibility to serve ALL Americans and is only working for himself and his wealthy friends.

His self-interested decision making is only going to continue to harm Americans.

We must hold him accountable.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold elected officials accountable, follow us on X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok.

President Donald Trump announced Senator Markwayne Mullin as his choice to replace Kristi Noem. While we wait for a U.S. Senate confirmation, let’s learn about the next potential Secretary of Homeland Security.

1.Mullin Faced a Multi-Year Ethics Investigation

The Committee on Ethics investigated Mullin’s continued involvement in his family’s business while in office. In 2018, they released a statement of Mullin’s “good faith efforts” to comply with ethics rules. Mullin had to pay back $40,000 that was “mistakenly paid to him” by his wife.

2.Mullin Challenged Teamster President to a Fight During a Hearing

Before he was a senator, Mullin was in the House of Representatives. He was also a mixed martial arts fighter and seemed to be nostalgic for that time when he challenged Teamster President Sean O’Brien to a physical fight during a congressional hearing in 2023.

The screaming match was about a social media post that O’Brien wrote about Mullin. Important to note, a committee member did have to intervene to prevent a physical altercation from happening.

3.Mullin is a 2020 Election Denier

Mullin has supported President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. This further solidifies his loyalty and allegiance to President Trump. It should disqualify him from the Cabinet.

4.Mullin is a Close Ally of President Trump

Mullin earned the title, GOP House Whisperer, by being one of the closest relationships to President Trump out of the Republican senators. He campaigned in Native American communities for President Trump in 2024.

He also strongly supports President Trump’s immigration policies, so his nomination is not too much of a surprise, as he had been open to a position in the second Trump Administration.

5.Mullin Painted Alex Pretti as an Aggressor.

In the aftermath of the shooting of Alex Pretti, Mullin characterized Pretti as the aggressor. This reaction raises the question if there will be a substantial difference between Mullin and Noem if he becomes head of Homeland Security.

Noem excused the abuses and under her leadership, ICE use of force trainings, meant to protect the public, was dramatically cut.

The real culprit is neither Noem or Mullin, but the mastermind profiting off of ICE’s mass deportations: Stephen Miller. To learn more, click here.

To stay up to date on Common Cause’s work on this issue and hold elected officials accountable, follow us on X [Twitter], Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and TikTok