This article was first published in the On the Hill newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Friday mornings here.
Hello, friends. And happy fall! It’s my favorite season of the year. I’m excited to see the colors change and for the air to get cold.
We are nearing the government shutdown deadline and it’s never seemed more certain in recent memory that a shutdown will in fact happen. Things can change, and five days is an eternity on Capitol Hill — but I’ve rarely seen both sides so adamant about not moving a muscle.
More on that later, but first I want to dive into some interesting developments from last week that I think were underreported — or the potential consequences, at least.
— Cami Mondeaux
The Big Idea: Should lawmakers be punished for things they repost on social media?
One of the more dramatic stories on Capitol Hill last week happened in a failed vote to censure Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., for posts on social media.
The effort, led by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., failed after four Republicans joined all Democrats to table the resolution — basically killing it before it even reached the floor for debate.
But what caught my eye is the language in the resolution itself. It accused Omar of disparaging the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and included five quotes with harsh language as evidence.
The sticking point: Omar didn’t actually say any of those quotes herself. She reposted a video of someone else saying those things.
So what does that mean in the context of free speech? Should Omar take responsibility for that — or does a repost absolve her of any responsibility?
That’s a question that was at hand last week, and it wasn’t really answered because the resolution was tabled. But lawmakers seem to disagree on the question of whether social media likes and shares should be treated as one’s speech — and if lawmakers should be held accountable for their online activity.
In the days leading up to the vote, Mace shared the original video on X to say: “This is the video Ilhan Omar reposted in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” highlighting phrases such as “reprehensible human being” and a “stochastic terrorist.”
This led Omar and some of her Democratic colleagues to push back, arguing Omar herself never said or typed those words — meaning she can’t be punished for it.
“Those are not direct quotes from Ilhan Omar,” Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., wrote in an X post. “According to the APA, if you use a direct quotation, it must sustain your claim. The quotes you used are not Ilhan’s words, they are not in context, and do not prove your point. Read before you tweet.”
When I reached out to Mace’s office about whether social media reposts should be treated as one’s own speech in this context, they just referred me to the congresswoman’s previous comments. Omar’s office similarly didn’t respond to a request for comment.
So I branched out a little further to get some more insight.
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., stuck out to me because he initially voted to table the censure resolution, but ultimately ended up changing his vote last minute on the House floor. When I asked him why, he told me: “I would like to hear our guys challenging her, and her to respond.”
“I’d like to hear her defend herself,” he added.
After thinking about this concept of social media posts and free speech, I reached back out to Bacon to ask if reposts should be held to the same standards.
This is what he said: “I think what you said shows why it is important that she defend herself. I agree reposting is not the same as writing it yourself but reposting toxic material is not good either depending on the motive.”
Zooming out from the halls of Congress, I wanted to get an outside perspective on whether lawmakers should be held to a higher standard for what they repost on their social media accounts. After all, they are the ones running this country — don’t we take what they say a little bit more seriously?
James Curry, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, likened the situation to a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you want lawmakers to express their opinions that, even if they are inflammatory, echo a certain population the lawmaker represents.
On the other hand, lawmakers should strive to uphold its reputation of being fair and balanced while adhering to decades-old rules of decorum and debate.
“I wouldn’t want to go too far in that direction either, where members of Congress feel muzzled about what they say in public, because that’s probably not useful,” Curry told me. “But I think at the end of the day, we probably all wish that our elected officials could speak more civilly toward each other, because that might encourage the public to be more civil toward each other, and that would probably be a good thing.”
Curry also put the censure attempt in context of current politics. Censures — a fancy word for “reprimands” or “condemnations” — have historically been used only to punish lawmakers for abhorrent behavior. But in recent years, it’s been used by both sides for political purposes and to shame members of the opposite party.
That has only become more common with the rise of social media, Curry says, and erodes the original purpose of maintaining decorum and respect on Capitol Hill.
“Using stuff that members amplify on social media ... reflects that this is less of this very somber process of ‘We do not tolerate this type of speech in the halls of Congress and violates the rules of decorum,’” Curry said. “It’s more about ‘We’re going to try to draw attention to something that we think someone on the other side has said or supports or might say out loud so we can try to cast that party and their members as extreme and unfit.’”
— Cami Mondeaux
Stories Driving the Week
- Return to the airwaves: Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air after a four-day hiatus prompted by anger over his comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. But he’s still being blocked in certain TV markets — prompting investigations from Democrats who say stations may be doing so to win President Donald Trump’s favor.
- Utah map drama: When the committee met on Monday, five maps were presented, all drawn by a Republican-hired consultant. On Wednesday, the Democrats presented a sixth option for consideration. Lawmakers won’t vote on one until early October, which could shake up the midterm election stage.
- Personal politics: The White House unveiled its newly installed Presidential Hall of Fame on Wednesday, displaying the official portraits of all former presidents — with the exception of former President Joe Biden, who was replaced with a photo of his autopen signature.
Congress braces for a shutdown
Here we are, back again with another update on government funding. It’s starting to sound like I’m repeating myself every week: No deal yet.
We are just days away from a government shutdown, and both sides could not be farther apart on coming to an agreement.
Remember: The deadline is midnight on Oct. 1. After that, federal funding for a slew of agencies is set to expire and some programs will be forced into furloughs or even mass layoffs. (More on that here.)
The Senate comes back on Monday, and Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is going to try again on voting on the Republican-led stopgap funding bill that already passed the House last week. That failed last week in a 44-48 vote in a situation where it needed at least 60 to end debate.
But Democrats are refusing to budge if they don’t get concessions on health care spending and some sort of assurances the Trump administration isn’t going to unilaterally slash spending that is approved by Congress. (Like when the president did here, or again here.)
Their simple messaging is this: Republicans control the government. If it shuts down, it’s their fault.
“When Democrats had the majority, we never shut down,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has argued.
But Republicans are calling their bluff — and argue that Americans would know to blame Democrats for a shutdown because of their so-called partisan demands.
“The problem is that Democrats only want to meet to repeat their demands that we include FREE healthcare to illegal aliens, half a billion dollars to prop up liberal news outlets, other leftist priorities, and a MASSIVE $1.5 TRILLION spending HIKE in a simple 7-week funding bill,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a post on X. “If Democrats fail to pass our clean, nonpartisan, 24-page CR to keep the government open the American People will know where the blame lies.”
I’ll be keeping an eye on developments next week. Stay tuned.
— Cami Mondeaux
Quick Hits
From the Hill: ‘No trust that exists’ with Republicans, top Democrat warns ahead of shutdown. … Arizona Democrat wins House race and will likely force vote on releasing Epstein files. … YouTube will restore accounts after Biden White House encouraged them to censor content.
From the White House: Former FBI Director James Comey expected to be indicted by Trump ally for perjury. … Was President Trump sabotaged at the United Nations General Assembly? … Trump shifts stance on war in Ukraine after meeting with Zelenskyy.
From the courts: Man accused of plotting Trump assassination found guilty on all counts. … Man charged in relation to Charlie Kirk assassination also faces child exploitation charges. … Becket asks Supreme Court to protect sports from gender identity redefinition.
What’s next
The Senate is back on Monday, less than 48 hours before the shutdown deadline. The House is scheduled to be out, but House Democrats will be in town for meetings in case of a shutdown.
No word yet if the House will reconvene officially.
As always, feel free to reach out to me by email with story ideas or questions you have for lawmakers. And follow me on X for breaking news and timely developments from the Hill.