Nieman Lab.
Predictions for
Journalism, 2025.
This will be the year journalism finally explains arcane legislative rules to the public — for national, state, and local government.
Most people find talk of clotures, filibusters, committee votes, bill reconciliation, the legislative calendar, and beyond absolutely boring. If civic-affairs news is the broccoli of American journalism, then coverage of legislative procedure is the unsalted lima bean.
Journalists’ imperative to explain all this to the public isn’t just about giving America (and the world) a civics lesson — rather, it may well amount to the best defense we have for maintaining democratic norms and holding politicians accountable.
And at a time when there is a trifecta of Republican leadership at the federal level — despite Donald Trump’s 1.6 percentage point win — the counterpoint to the Republican legislative agenda may well depend on how American politicians are able to manipulate what amounts to a hyped-up version of Robert’s Rules of Order. Perhaps you’ve only recently learned why recess appointments matter — but it’s this kind of politicking with procedural statutes that will be the stuff of controversy for the next administration.
Many of us were raised on the Schoolhouse Rock version of how a bill becomes a law — it remains a classic explainer even today. But the reality is that the daily functioning of what happens in Congress depends on procedural statutes that are nuanced, confusing, and, quite frankly, boring — despite their relevance for the future of democratic life.
Just how well legislators can manipulate these rules to their advantage can change the course of history — and sometimes, the force of tradition is just not compelling enough to politicians seeking to advance their agenda.
For instance, despite prior historical precedent, Senator Mitch McConnell and 11 other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were able to block proceedings to move forward with Obama’s Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland.
In a recent example, the House Ethics Committee was able to block the public release of a report about Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged sexual misconduct, drug use, and other unethical behavior. Legislators respected the decision; no such report has been made available. Journalists made enough noise, perhaps, for Gaetz to stand aside as Trump’s pick for Attorney General.
This matters at the state level, too. Just before Thanksgiving, Louisiana’s House judiciary committee voted against creating “specialized courts” for “complex business cases,” but Republican leaders somehow kept the bill alive.
And unlike the Schoolhouse Rock version of American civics, many of the delay tactics and strategies for introducing bills into laws, voting on appointments, appropriating budgets, and so on aren’t delineated in the Constitution. Procedural statutes also impact how executive agencies implement policies. As per the Congressional Research Service, this rule-making power has the force of law.
Journalists need to be proactive about covering politicians’ smart procedural shenanigans and cannot wait for a story to happen and respond. Manipulating procedure isn’t unconstitutional, because most of it is not in the Constitution, but it’s unclear what exactly compels any legislators to follow these procedural statutes, and the extent to which procedural processes are actually just norms rather than anything codified.
The role journalists have to play in this form of government accountability couldn’t be more vital — but these types of stories have always been seen as inside baseball. Centering this coverage is going to require breaking old habits and ways of thinking about political coverage, but editors and producers need to change their perspectives, for the sake of our democracy.
Given the contemporary makeup of Congress and the new administration, there’s no telling whether any of the procedural statutes and traditional norms that structure how government works will actually continue — and what happens if politicians choose to ignore or subvert them. Journalists, please, let this be the year you help the rest of us understand how and when to cry fowl, raise hell, or smirk quietly while “our” side notches a sneaky win on a legislative technicality. Democracy depends on journalists to do this job and do it well.
Nik Usher (they/them) is an associate professor in communication at the University of San Diego.
This will be the year journalism finally explains arcane legislative rules to the public — for national, state, and local government.
Most people find talk of clotures, filibusters, committee votes, bill reconciliation, the legislative calendar, and beyond absolutely boring. If civic-affairs news is the broccoli of American journalism, then coverage of legislative procedure is the unsalted lima bean.
Journalists’ imperative to explain all this to the public isn’t just about giving America (and the world) a civics lesson — rather, it may well amount to the best defense we have for maintaining democratic norms and holding politicians accountable.
And at a time when there is a trifecta of Republican leadership at the federal level — despite Donald Trump’s 1.6 percentage point win — the counterpoint to the Republican legislative agenda may well depend on how American politicians are able to manipulate what amounts to a hyped-up version of Robert’s Rules of Order. Perhaps you’ve only recently learned why recess appointments matter — but it’s this kind of politicking with procedural statutes that will be the stuff of controversy for the next administration.
Many of us were raised on the Schoolhouse Rock version of how a bill becomes a law — it remains a classic explainer even today. But the reality is that the daily functioning of what happens in Congress depends on procedural statutes that are nuanced, confusing, and, quite frankly, boring — despite their relevance for the future of democratic life.
Just how well legislators can manipulate these rules to their advantage can change the course of history — and sometimes, the force of tradition is just not compelling enough to politicians seeking to advance their agenda.
For instance, despite prior historical precedent, Senator Mitch McConnell and 11 other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were able to block proceedings to move forward with Obama’s Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland.
In a recent example, the House Ethics Committee was able to block the public release of a report about Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged sexual misconduct, drug use, and other unethical behavior. Legislators respected the decision; no such report has been made available. Journalists made enough noise, perhaps, for Gaetz to stand aside as Trump’s pick for Attorney General.
This matters at the state level, too. Just before Thanksgiving, Louisiana’s House judiciary committee voted against creating “specialized courts” for “complex business cases,” but Republican leaders somehow kept the bill alive.
And unlike the Schoolhouse Rock version of American civics, many of the delay tactics and strategies for introducing bills into laws, voting on appointments, appropriating budgets, and so on aren’t delineated in the Constitution. Procedural statutes also impact how executive agencies implement policies. As per the Congressional Research Service, this rule-making power has the force of law.
Journalists need to be proactive about covering politicians’ smart procedural shenanigans and cannot wait for a story to happen and respond. Manipulating procedure isn’t unconstitutional, because most of it is not in the Constitution, but it’s unclear what exactly compels any legislators to follow these procedural statutes, and the extent to which procedural processes are actually just norms rather than anything codified.
The role journalists have to play in this form of government accountability couldn’t be more vital — but these types of stories have always been seen as inside baseball. Centering this coverage is going to require breaking old habits and ways of thinking about political coverage, but editors and producers need to change their perspectives, for the sake of our democracy.
Given the contemporary makeup of Congress and the new administration, there’s no telling whether any of the procedural statutes and traditional norms that structure how government works will actually continue — and what happens if politicians choose to ignore or subvert them. Journalists, please, let this be the year you help the rest of us understand how and when to cry fowl, raise hell, or smirk quietly while “our” side notches a sneaky win on a legislative technicality. Democracy depends on journalists to do this job and do it well.
Nik Usher (they/them) is an associate professor in communication at the University of San Diego.
