Speaker Mike Johnson Pushes for Sweeping Ban on Members of Congress Dating House Staffers

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — House Speaker Mike Johnson is calling for a major change to congressional ethics rules, saying members of Congress should be prohibited from pursuing romantic relationships with any House staffer, not just employees working directly in their own offices.

The proposal represents one of the strongest public positions taken by House leadership on workplace relationships and comes as lawmakers from both parties continue debating reforms aimed at preventing sexual harassment and abuse of power on Capitol Hill.

Johnson: "I Can't Believe It Would Be Acceptable"

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Johnson argued that Congress should hold itself to the same—or even higher—standards expected in the private sector.

"I can't believe it would be acceptable in any situation," Johnson said when asked whether lawmakers should date House staffers. "I think we should as a bare minimum in Congress have rules and traditions that are adhered to in corporate America."

Under current House ethics rules, members are already prohibited from pursuing romantic or sexual relationships with employees who work directly for them because of the obvious supervisory relationship and power imbalance.

Johnson, however, believes that prohibition should extend across the entire House of Representatives, regardless of whether the staffer works for another member or committee.

Why the Debate Has Intensified

The discussion follows several high-profile controversies involving members of Congress and allegations of inappropriate relationships and workplace misconduct.

In recent months, lawmakers from both parties have debated whether the current rules go far enough to protect congressional staff. Many argue that even when a staffer works for another office, there remains an inherent imbalance of power between elected officials and employees who depend on Congress for their careers.

Supporters of expanding the ban say the issue isn't simply about consent—it is about preventing situations where influence, prestige, or political power could create coercive environments.

Bipartisan Push for Reform

Johnson's comments immediately received praise from Democratic Women's Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernandez, who has advocated for expanding the prohibition.

She said the Democratic Women's Caucus has long argued that the restrictions should apply to all congressional staff, not just those employed directly by an individual lawmaker.

According to Fernandez, the power imbalance exists throughout Congress because every staff member ultimately works within the same institution and may interact professionally with numerous members.

She expressed optimism that a bipartisan working group examining sexual harassment reforms could soon finalize recommendations.

Republican Support

Republican Rep. Kat Cammack, who serves on the bipartisan working group studying Capitol Hill workplace reforms, said negotiations have made significant progress.

According to Cammack, lawmakers have reached broad agreement on several issues, including:

• Improved sexual harassment training.

• Better reporting procedures.

• Increased awareness of employee protections.

• Streamlining complaint processes.

The more difficult questions, she acknowledged, involve enforcement.

Lawmakers continue debating how quickly members accused of misconduct should face consequences, what penalties should apply, and how to balance congressional accountability with voters' right to elect their representatives.

The Constitutional Question

One of the most complicated aspects of any reform is that members of Congress are elected officials—not traditional employees.

Unlike executives in private corporations, members cannot simply be fired by a supervisor.

Instead, disciplinary actions can include House ethics investigations, public reprimands, censure, removal from committees, or expulsion in the most serious cases.

Ultimately, voters retain the power to remove members at the ballot box.

Cammack noted that many constituents might vote differently if they were fully aware of lawmakers' conduct in Washington, adding that much of what happens on Capitol Hill occurs outside public view.

A Cultural Shift on Capitol Hill

Congress has spent much of the past decade reevaluating workplace standards following the #MeToo movement and numerous allegations of sexual harassment involving lawmakers and senior congressional staff.

Reforms have included mandatory workplace training, expanded reporting mechanisms, and changes to how complaints are handled through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.

Johnson's proposal would represent another significant step toward treating Congress more like large private-sector employers, many of which maintain strict policies regarding workplace relationships involving unequal power dynamics.

What Happens Next?

Johnson's endorsement may provide additional momentum for the bipartisan working group as it prepares recommendations for House leadership.

If adopted, the proposal would significantly broaden current ethics rules by prohibiting members from dating any House employee, regardless of where that staff member works.

Whether enough lawmakers agree remains to be seen. Critics argue Congress should not regulate consensual relationships between adults who have no direct reporting relationship, while supporters contend that preserving professionalism and eliminating potential abuses of power outweigh those concerns.

As negotiations continue, the debate reflects a broader question facing Congress: how to modernize workplace standards while respecting the unique constitutional role of elected officials.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Dies at 71, Closing the Chapter on One of Washington's Most Controversial Republicans

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who spent more than two decades in the U.S. Senate, died Saturday at the age of 71 after what his office described as a "brief and sudden illness."

His death ends the career of one of the most influential—and, to many conservatives, one of the most controversial—figures in modern Republican politics.

While Washington leaders are expected to celebrate Graham's decades of public service, many voters will remember him far differently: as a senator who consistently supported foreign intervention, expanded military spending, and what critics viewed as the growth of an increasingly powerful federal government.

For years, Graham was one of the Senate's loudest advocates for U.S. involvement overseas. He supported military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and remained one of Congress' strongest backers of continued military aid to Ukraine. Critics argued that these policies helped prolong costly conflicts, increased the national debt, and diverted attention and resources from pressing problems at home.

His foreign policy positions earned him the reputation of being one of Capitol Hill's leading "war hawks." America First conservatives frequently accused him of placing the interests of Washington's foreign policy establishment ahead of the needs of American taxpayers and service members.

Graham also faced repeated criticism for what opponents described as shifting political principles. After being one of Donald Trump's harshest Republican critics during the 2016 presidential campaign, he later became one of Trump's closest Senate allies. Supporters called it pragmatism; critics called it political expediency.

Fiscal conservatives likewise questioned Graham's record, arguing that despite promises of limited government, he repeatedly supported spending measures that contributed to rising federal deficits while rarely challenging the overall growth of Washington.

Throughout his career, Graham defended his positions by arguing that American strength abroad protected national security and that compromise was necessary to govern effectively. His supporters credit him with helping shape the federal judiciary and maintaining a strong national defense.

His detractors, however, contend that his legacy is one of endless foreign commitments, mounting federal spending, and a Republican Party that drifted away from the limited-government principles many voters expected it to uphold.

With Graham's passing, the debate over that legacy is unlikely to end. For supporters, he was a steadfast defender of American leadership. For critics, he became a symbol of the interventionist, establishment politics that many voters have spent the last decade trying to replace.

Thomas Massie’s Defeat Exposes a Republican Civil War Over Conservatism, Spending, and Foreign Influence

 

The defeat of Thomas Massie is being celebrated across establishment Republican circles as a victory for party discipline. But beneath the celebration lies a deeper question many grassroots conservatives are now asking: If a legislator with some of the highest constitutional and fiscal conservative ratings in Congress can be politically destroyed, what exactly does the Republican Party still stand for?

For years, Massie built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to vote against massive spending bills regardless of which party controlled Washington. He frequently opposed omnibus packages, foreign aid expansions, warrantless surveillance renewals, and debt ceiling increases. Supporters viewed him as one of the last legislators operating from a strict constitutional framework rather than partisan convenience.

His allies now argue that his defeat was not simply a rejection by voters, but the culmination of an unprecedented financial and political campaign led by establishment interests, Super PACs, foreign policy hawks, and donor networks determined to eliminate one of Congress’ most consistent dissenters.

The numbers fueling that argument are difficult to ignore.

According to conservative scorecards cited by Massie supporters — including , , and — Massie routinely ranked near the very top of the Republican conference on issues involving limited government, spending restraint, civil liberties, and constitutional adherence.

The composite rankings circulated after the election paint a devastating picture for establishment Republicans.

Out of more than 200 House Republicans, only a tiny fraction allegedly scored above 90 percent on combined liberty-oriented metrics. The overwhelming majority reportedly fell into middling or failing ranges according to the same conservative organizations many grassroots activists have relied upon for years.

That has triggered accusations of hypocrisy from conservatives who say the term “RINO” is now being weaponized against lawmakers who actually vote conservatively, while Republicans who routinely support trillion-dollar spending packages escape scrutiny because they align with party leadership and donor interests.

The criticism intensified because many of the same Republicans who helped isolate Massie have simultaneously backed:

• multi-trillion-dollar continuing resolutions,
• repeated debt ceiling increases,
• record federal deficits,
• expanding military expenditures,
• and ongoing foreign aid authorizations.

Critics argue that the modern Republican establishment campaigns on fiscal conservatism while governing as managers of permanent federal expansion.

The frustration extends beyond spending.

Massie frequently clashed with Republican leadership on foreign policy, surveillance powers, COVID-era policies, and federal authority. He often voted alone or among a tiny minority willing to oppose bipartisan consensus measures.

To supporters, that independence made him one of the last authentic constitutional conservatives in Washington.

To opponents, it made him unreliable and politically dangerous.

The result, many activists argue, is a Republican Party increasingly hostile toward ideological consistency and increasingly loyal to donor infrastructure, lobbying interests, and political machinery centered in Washington rather than grassroots voters.

The backlash against Donald Trump from some former Massie supporters reflects that growing divide.

For years, many constitutional conservatives viewed Trump as an outsider capable of dismantling the Republican establishment. But Massie’s defeat has led some activists to accuse Trump of becoming aligned with the same donor networks and power structures he once campaigned against.

Those critics point specifically to escalating federal debt, expanding deficits, massive spending agreements, and interventionist foreign policy positions that they argue conflict with traditional limited-government conservatism.

The anger has now evolved into broader calls for a political realignment.

Across conservative grassroots circles, discussions about creating a new “America Party” or liberty-focused coalition have intensified. Supporters argue the existing two-party system no longer represents voters concerned about constitutional limits, federal spending, civil liberties, and national debt.

Whether those efforts materialize into an organized movement remains uncertain.

What is certain is that Massie’s defeat has become symbolic far beyond a single congressional race.

To establishment Republicans, it was a demonstration of political power and party enforcement.

To many liberty conservatives, it was a warning.

A lawmaker celebrated for opposing debt expansion, challenging party orthodoxy, and defending constitutional limits was defeated not despite those positions, but — in the eyes of supporters — because of them.

And in a nation now carrying a debt exceeding $38 trillion, that reality is fueling an uncomfortable question many Republicans would rather avoid:

If legislators with near-perfect conservative scorecards are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, what definition of conservatism remains?

The Truth About The President's And Congressional Pensions

By now most of us have seen the follow meme either on facebook or via e-mail:

The person that started this meme unfortunately has their facts wrong.  Here is the accurate information:

• Members of Congress earn their $174,000 salaries only during their elected terms. (Nope, not for life.)

• They’re eligible for congressional pensions only after five years of service. (For a member of the House, that would mean getting elected to office at least three times.)

Those pensions can’t be tapped until retirement age — and can’t be collected while a lawmaker still gets a federal salary. So John Kerry, for example, can’t collect his congressional pension while he serves as secretary of state, according to Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union.

• The size of the pension depends on years of service and the average of a lawmaker’s highest three years of salary. The exact formula depends on when they started. Meanwhile, every paycheck, lawmakers contribute to both their pensions and Social Security.

• Most congressional pensions are nowhere near a lawmaker’s salary. Under a pre-1984 retirement formula, it couldn’t be more than 80 percent of a lawmaker’s final salary, not counting cost-of-living adjustments. Under current rules, lawmakers could theoretically get more than 80 percent of their salary, but most would need to serve more than 66 years to get that.

Report: 24 Members of Congress Do Not Believe in God

An atheist organization reveals there are two dozen members of Congress who do not believe in God.

St Regis Catholic Church
Bloomfield Hills, MI

Maggie Ardiente of the American Humanist Association made the revelation to Religion News Service.

“We already know of 24 members of Congress who have told us privately that they don’t believe in God, but they won’t come out, of course, and if we tried to out them they would deny it,” she told Religion News Service.

The last open atheist in Congress was Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in 2012. Religion News Service reports Stark admitted that he was an atheist 35 years after being elected. Barney Frank announced he was an atheist after he retired from Congress. Atheist James Woods from Arizona is running for Congress and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema does not identify with a religion.

A Pew Research Center poll from May found that 53 percent of Americans would less likely support a candidate that didn’t believe in God. Forty-one percent of those polled said it wouldn’t matter if the candidate believed in God or not.

There are currently no open atheists in Congress