Politics

Beyond the Classroom: The Insidious Spread of Critical Race Theory in US Institutions

Published

3 months ago

December 4, 2025

The Insidious Spread of Critical Race Theory

In American universities, the U.S. military, and even federal hospitals, a once-narrow academic idea called critical race theory (CRT) has grown into a broad institutional ideology. CRT began as a specialized legal framework that looked at how racism shapes laws and policies. Over time, it shifted into something much larger, often used to reshape training, rules, and culture inside major institutions.

Supporters see CRT as a helpful way to confront past and present injustice. Critics see it as a belief system that splits people by race, weakens merit-based standards, and clashes with long-held American ideals. Parents, veterans, teachers, doctors, and lawmakers are now locked in a fight over what CRT is doing to public life.

This investigation looks at how CRT-related ideas have moved beyond the classroom and into key sectors of American life. It draws on surveys, legal fights, policy changes, and firsthand stories to show how deep this influence now runs.

The Roots of a Polarizing Theory

From Legal Theory to Cultural Force

Critical race theory arose in the late 1970s and 1980s through legal scholars such as Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw. They argued that racism is not only individual bias but a built-in feature of American institutions and laws.

Backers say CRT helps expose how rules on housing, schooling, and criminal justice can lock in unequal outcomes. They claim it shines a light on how discrimination can exist even without open hatred.

Opponents focus on CRT’s core claims, such as the idea that race is a social construct used to maintain power, and that colorblindness is a lie that hides ongoing racism. They say these ideas encourage guilt in white Americans, promote a sense of permanent victimhood among minorities, and damage social trust.

From Campus Debates to National Flashpoint

The leap from law journals to mainstream life sped up after the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s death. By 2021, then-President Donald Trump had signed an executive order that banned certain federal trainings that included what he labeled “divisive concepts,” including CRT. He called these programs “anti-American propaganda,” which ignited a fierce political fight.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo played a central role in raising public concern, especially online and through policy groups. He openly described his strategy as “recodifying” CRT as a broad label for what he saw as cultural excesses. His approach helped turn public unease into organized campaigns and legislative action.

As of 2025, 18 states have passed laws that restrict CRT-related lessons or training in public schools. The conflict, however, has pushed far beyond K-12.

A 2025 Manhattan Institute survey of 1,505 young adults found that:

62% said they were taught or had heard in school that “America is a systemically racist country.”
69% said they had been taught or exposed to ideas like “white privilege.”

Ideas that used to appear mostly in graduate seminars now show up in everyday classroom life, corporate training, and government programs. The line between teaching history and pushing ideology has become a core point of dispute.

Infiltrating Higher Education

Universities as CRT’s Stronghold

America’s universities are CRT’s home base and remain the place where it holds the most power. Elite schools such as Harvard and Yale have long had CRT scholars on their law and social science faculties. What has changed is the way CRT concepts have spread into undergraduate courses, freshman orientations, and mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

A 2024 Education Next survey of high school students found that while full-on CRT teaching is not “widespread,” more than 90% of students encountered at least one core CRT-related idea. Public and private schools showed similar levels of exposure.

The Florida Fight and Campus Pushback

Florida has become a major test case. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Stop WOKE Act in 2022, which restricts state university teachings that claim people are “inherently racist” or “oppressors” based on race. Supporters say the law protects students from ideological pressure and racial guilt.

In November 2025, an op-ed in The Oracle pushed back, calling for a return of CRT content. The writer argued that CRT is needed to reveal how “laws, policies, and institutions” can act as racist systems. Supporters see this work as honesty, not hostility.

Critics point to programs such as the University of Washington’s 2024 teacher-training conferences, where CRT-based modules described local schools as “systematically racist” and white students as “oppressors.” They argue that these ideas stigmatize students and staff and replace teaching with moral accusation.

Chilling Effects on Teaching and Learning

The policy struggle has real classroom effects. A 2025 Brookings Institution study linked rising anti-CRT rhetoric with falling public trust in teachers and schools. Since 2021, 18 states and about 150 school districts have adopted rules that curb certain ways of talking about race.

Civil rights lawyers in Arkansas are suing over some of these laws, arguing that they violate free speech and academic freedom. At the same time, conservative lawmakers in at least 44 states have proposed bills that target CRT or CRT-inspired content, often describing higher education as a front in a larger ideological battle.

Professors report that they now tread carefully. Some say they skip or water down material on race or inequality to avoid complaints that they are “indoctrinating” students. Others say they feel pressure to include more activist content to satisfy DEI offices.

Students feel the strain as well. Some students of color say “equity” efforts treat them like symbols instead of individuals, while some white and Asian students say they feel branded as guilty or privileged before they speak.

As one Yale faculty member told VorNews Media, “CRT promised liberation but delivered division. Campus debates are fading, and echo chambers are growing.”

Marching Into the Military

DEI, CRT, and Unit Cohesion

The spread of CRT-related ideas inside the U.S. military alarms many critics more than any campus trend. The armed forces depend on unity, trust, and rank-based authority. Anything that highlights racial difference, they argue, can weaken those bonds.

The Department of Defense has heavily expanded its DEI efforts. Many of these programs draw on CRT-related language and frameworks. DEI funding rose from about $68 million in fiscal 2022 to a requested $114.7 million in 2024.

A July 2024 report from Arizona State University reviewed training materials across several branches. It found lessons that described U.S. founding documents as rooted in systemic racism and encouraged service members to probe their “whiteness” and “privilege.”

Political and Strategic Backlash

In response, Senator Tom Cotton introduced the Combating Racist Training in the Military Act in 2023. His bill sought to block trainings that use CRT concepts, which he called “anti-American theories” that claim some races are “fundamentally oppressive.”

Analysts at the Heritage Foundation argue that CRT weakens morale by pushing service members to view one another through an oppressor-versus-oppressed lens. They often cite Napoleon’s claim that moral strength outweighs physical strength “three to one” in battle. If soldiers distrust each other because of race, they say, it could cost lives.

Recent controversies have added fuel to the debate. In 2024, Navy reading lists for officers included CRT authors and books on gender ideology. House Republicans blasted these choices as “insanity” inside the Pentagon.

At a 2021 House Oversight Committee hearing, witnesses warned that CRT instruction could divide units and lower readiness. Around the same time, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley drew fire for defending the study of CRT in military education. He said leaders needed to understand “white rage” to grasp what fueled events like the January 6 Capitol riot.

Veterans Speak Out and Recruitment Plummets

Many veterans see CRT and certain DEI programs as a direct insult to the colorblind merit system they thought they were protecting.

“We fought for a colorblind meritocracy,” retired Marine Corps Col. Dakota Wood said in a Heritage Foundation podcast. “CRT turns brothers-in-arms into racial enemies.”

These debates collide with a serious recruitment crisis. By 2024, military recruitment was down about 25%, with polls showing that many young Americans see the services as “too woke” or too politicized. Critics tie this trend to CRT-inspired training and messaging, arguing that the focus on identity politics drives away potential recruits who just want to serve their country.

CRT Inside Government Agencies and Healthcare

Federal Agencies and DEI Mandates

CRT-linked training is not limited to schools and the military. After President Biden reversed Trump’s executive order in 2021, federal agencies restored and expanded DEI programs that often include ideas rooted in CRT.

Many of these programs stress “intersectionality,” a concept coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, which looks at how race, gender, class, and other traits combine to shape power and disadvantage. Training sessions teach staff to examine how their own identities might affect decisions about hiring, discipline, grants, or enforcement.

Supporters say this work helps government workers spot hidden bias. Critics argue that it reduces coworkers to identity categories and paints white employees as inherently suspect.

CRT Frames in Healthcare and HHS Programs

The health sector has also become a major arena for CRT-related ideas. A 2024 STAT News investigation highlighted evidence of racial gaps in medical treatment and outcomes inside systems overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Advocates say CRT offers a framework for seeing how old patterns of discrimination still affect treatment quality and trust.

Skeptics don’t deny that gaps exist but object to describing every disparity as proof of “systemic white supremacy.” They warn that this language can deepen resentment and distract from practical fixes like better access to primary care, improved screening, and clearer patient communication.

Military and veterans’ hospitals sit at the intersection of defense and health policy. A 2024 study found that lower-ranking service members often receive worse care when resources are tight and higher-ranking patients get priority. CRT-style analysis would see this as a form of built-in privilege. Critics worry that framing it that way might increase frustration without solving deeper problems in staffing and funding.

The HHS 2025 budget includes millions of dollars for “anti-racism” initiatives. Republican lawmakers have launched probes into whether these funds are supporting CRT ideologies instead of directly improving patient care and outcomes.

Federal Politics and “Ideological Indoctrination”

The broader political fight over CRT now shapes party platforms. The 2024 GOP platform pledged to cut funding from institutions that it says promote “inappropriate political indoctrination,” including CRT-based trainings in federal agencies and the military.

A Fox News report described Pentagon DEI sessions that discussed both CRT frameworks and gender identity topics, arguing that these lessons blur the line between fair treatment and extreme ideology. Supporters of the training respond that the military, like any large employer, needs to address issues like harassment, bias, and unequal treatment.

Cultural and Political Fallout

From School Board Meetings to Election Night

CRT debates have reshaped local politics, school board meetings, and national elections. The 2021 Virginia governor’s race offered a clear example. Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin embraced an anti-CRT message, siding with parents angry about what their children were being taught. He flipped a state that had leaned Democratic, inspiring Republicans across the country to adopt similar themes.

That strategy carried into later cycles. In 2024, several Republican candidates ran on platforms that promised to fight CRT, gender ideology, and “woke” programs in schools and the military. They tied these themes to concerns about crime, public standards, and national identity.

Polling shows how split the public remains. About half of Americans say they have a negative view of CRT. At the same time, many agree with some of its claims when they are phrased in plain language, such as acknowledging that racism can be built into institutions.

Online Fights and Public Opinion

On X (formerly Twitter), the war over CRT runs day and night.

Some users describe CRT as “anti-white racism” and share stories of classroom assignments that label white students as oppressors. Others complain that “woke jihadism” has taken over certain Minnesota school districts, mixing rhetoric about race, gender, and politics.

Alongside race debates, some voices call for banning “black studies” courses, they say push anti-white narratives, while others compare antisemitic content to racist content and demand equal treatment under school rules. One active thread recently linked HHS reviews of school vaccine exemptions with what posters saw as government overreach, similar to CRT-related policies.

On the other side, liberal academics and groups such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) describe anti-CRT laws as an “assault on antiracist thinking.” They warn that lawmakers are trying to narrow what teachers can say about race, which they see as textbook censorship.

A 2024 study from Indiana University found that states with Republican leadership were more likely to pass laws that scaled back “critical perspectives” on race. The authors argued that these moves risk returning to a sanitized version of American history that sidesteps topics like Jim Crow and redlining.

Voice of America (VOA) reporting has captured the emotional gulf. Many conservatives say CRT shames white children and treats them as villains for the sins of earlier generations. Many liberals say CRT and related tools are needed to honestly confront past injustice and understand present inequalities.

Reclaiming Institutions: What Comes Next

A Public Tired of Extremes

As 2025 moves forward, Americans are showing signs of fatigue with both extremes. Surveys suggest that most people want schools and institutions to teach honest history, including racism and discrimination, but don’t want their children labeled as oppressors or victims based on skin color.

There is broad support for the idea that:

Racism has shaped American history and still affects outcomes today.
Every person deserves to be treated as an individual, not as a stand-in for a group.

Many people are looking for ways to talk about race and inequality that don’t divide friends, coworkers, classmates, and neighbors into permanent camps.

Policy, Parents, and the Fight for Neutral Ground

Going forward, policymakers face tough choices. Some argue that federal and state governments should pull funding from programs that require CRT-based training, while still protecting open discussion of race in academic settings. Others want stronger free-speech guarantees for teachers and professors of all viewpoints, including those who use CRT in their research or teaching.

Parents have become powerful actors in this story. In states such as Tennessee, upset parents helped oust school board members they labeled as “woke Democrats.” These parents formed groups, backed lawsuits, and pushed for more control over curricula and library content.

Veterans and active-duty service members are pressing military leaders to refocus on readiness, discipline, and warfighting. They warn that debates over CRT and DEI create internal friction and feed a sense that the services care more about politics than performance.

In healthcare, patients and doctors are asking a basic question: are anti-racism programs making care better, or just more ideological? Many patients want fair and respectful treatment without racial profiling in either direction.

Unity, History, and the American Ideal

The core national challenge is how to talk about racism without tearing apart the shared identity that holds a country together. The danger of CRT, critics say, is not that it looks at racism, but that it turns race into the central lens for understanding almost everything.

America needs to examine its history, including its worst chapters. It does not need a framework that divides citizens into permanent groups of guilty and aggrieved. Abraham Lincoln’s warning still hangs over the debate: a house divided cannot stand.

Classrooms, barracks, hospital wards, and office conference rooms are not just workspaces. They are where Americans learn whom to trust and what kind of country they live in.

If those spaces treat people as individuals and reward merit, they can pull the nation together. If they sort people by race and teach them to suspect one another, they will pull it apart.

The fight over critical race theory is, at its core, a fight over what kind of “out of many, one” America chooses to be.

Up Next

What the SCOTUS Term’s Biggest Rulings Mean for Freedom

Don't Miss

America First or Last? The Conservative Case for Re-Evaluating Foreign Aid

Politics

Bill Clinton’s Testimony Triggers Backlash: Bill Says “I Saw Nothing, Did Nothing Wrong

Published

5 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

Bill Clinton-Epstein Testimony Triggers Backlash

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Jeffrey Epstein saga took another sharp turn this week after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke publicly about their past ties to the convicted sex offender.

Their comments followed closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee, and the reaction was immediate. Critics, survivors’ advocates, and political voices accused the Clintons of ducking hard questions and minimizing a well-documented association.

Lawmakers compelled the depositions by subpoena after early pushback, making the sessions a rare moment in which former top officials testified under oath in a congressional review tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Bill Clinton’s insistence that he “saw nothing” and “did nothing wrong,” paired with Hillary Clinton’s statement that she “does not recall ever encountering” Epstein, sparked a new wave of anger. Among the loudest critics, media personality Megyn Kelly called Clinton a “liar.”

The Latest Depositions: Firm Denials, Sharp Pushback

On February 27, 2026, Bill Clinton sat for nearly six hours of closed-door questioning in New York with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. In an opening statement later shared on social media, he described Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” and said their contact ended long before Epstein’s crimes became widely known.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said. “Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.” He added that if he had known what Epstein was doing, he would have “turned him in myself.” Clinton pointed to his upbringing in a home touched by domestic abuse as part of his explanation for why he would not have ignored misconduct.

He also confirmed he flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times for charitable work, and he said Secret Service agents were present. At the same time, he denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and said he never saw illegal behavior. Clinton also said he didn’t recognize a woman pictured with him in a jacuzzi in Justice Department files that later became public.

A day earlier, on February 26, Hillary Clinton testified for more than six hours. In her opening statement, she said, “I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.” She repeated that she never flew on Epstein’s plane, never visited his properties, and had no involvement with him. She also criticized the committee, saying it was using the matter for partisan distractions.

Both Clintons also tried to distance themselves from Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition, they expressed support for survivors seeking justice and healing.

Critics React: Claims of Evasion and Unbelievable Answers

Even so, the pushback has been intense. Critics argue the denials don’t square with what’s already in the public record. That record includes flight logs that show Bill Clinton on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times, plus reports of Epstein visiting the White House during Clinton’s presidency.

Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and journalist, has led much of the public criticism. In media appearances tied to the Epstein files and the depositions, Kelly rejected Clinton’s account. She called him a “liar” and referred to him as a “predator.” Her comments matched a broader view among detractors that Clinton’s past makes his assurances hard to trust.

Meanwhile, survivors’ advocates and online commentators said the testimonies felt dismissive. Many described the answers as evasive and inadequate for victims who have waited years for clarity.

At the same time, political analysts say the depositions widened partisan gaps. Republicans have focused on the Clintons’ connection to Epstein, while Democrats have pointed to scrutiny of other public figures with their own links to Epstein’s circle.

Bill Clinton’s Record of Controversies Involving Women

This moment also revived attention on Bill Clinton’s long history of allegations involving women, including repeated denials that later collided with new facts or admissions.

Some of the most talked-about episodes include:

Monica Lewinsky affair (1995 to 1997): Clinton initially denied having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He later acknowledged an improper relationship under oath. The House impeached him in 1998 on perjury and obstruction charges, although the Senate acquitted him.
Paula Jones lawsuit: In 1994, Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment tied to his time as governor. He settled the case out of court for $850,000 in 1998.
Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation: Broaddrick said Clinton raped her in 1978. Clinton denied the claim through representatives.
Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers: Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. Flowers said she had a long-term affair with him. Both claims became part of the wider scrutiny during his presidency.

Because of this history, critics say Clinton has a pattern of denial followed by partial acknowledgment. As a result, they compare his old responses to his current statements about Epstein.

Where This Fits in the Wider Epstein Case

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Before his death, he built relationships with influential people across politics, business, and entertainment. Since then, document releases, including flight logs and photographs, have kept the Clintons in the headlines. Still, no evidence has surfaced that links them to criminal conduct.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), has issued subpoenas to several people, including the Clintons. The stated goal is to map Epstein’s network and review how government agencies handled related cases. Depending on who’s speaking, the probe has been described as a “serious investigation” or a “clown show.”

Bill Clinton said he cooperated to help prevent future abuse. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton framed the process as politically driven.

The Public Response, and What Comes Next

The depositions quickly dominated news coverage, and social media seized on the Clintons’ wording. Supporters say the couple is being singled out without proof of wrongdoing. Critics say the testimonies reflect how powerful people avoid accountability.

Transcripts and video from the depositions are expected to come out, and the argument is likely to grow louder once they do. For many Americans, the latest chapter keeps the same questions alive: who knew what, who looked away, and why it took so long to get answers tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For Extraordinary Hypocrisy

Politics

Calls Mount to Expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress

Published

5 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on February 24, 2026, some Republican lawmakers and conservative voices have renewed calls to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from Congress.

The push follows Ilhan Omar’s loud interruptions during the address, which critics say crossed a line and disrespected the chamber. Omar and her supporters, however, say the outbursts were a form of protest against policies they believe cause real harm.

The night’s clash has reopened a familiar fight in Washington: how far can protest go inside Congress before it becomes misconduct? At the same time, it has added fresh fuel to an already tense and divided House.

What Happened During the State of the Union?

Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress included sharp moments, especially when he turned to immigration and border security. During key parts of the address, Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) shouted objections from the floor. Eyewitnesses and video clips show Omar yelling words such as “liar” and “murderer” as Trump discussed immigration enforcement and referenced incidents involving Somali-American communities in Minnesota.

When Omar interrupted, the loudest moments came as Trump spoke about alleged fraud tied to Somali immigrants and about deaths involving federal agents. Later, Omar said she spoke up to point out what she views as the administration’s role in the deaths of two constituents.
Omar’s guest was removed and arrested: The situation escalated when Omar’s guest, Aliya Rahman, was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after standing during the address. Police cited “unlawful conduct” and disruption, and they said guests are told that demonstrations are not allowed. Reports also say Rahman is autistic and has shoulder injuries, and that officers warned her before removing her.
Trump answered in the moment: Trump paused and criticized the heckling, calling Democrats “crazy.” He also aimed a direct remark at Omar, telling her, “You should be ashamed.”

In a post-speech interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Omar said she didn’t regret what happened. “I do not [have regrets], and I think many people look at that moment when the president says, ‘It is our responsibility to protect Americans,’ and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans… were killed,” she said. Omar framed her interruptions as a reminder that policy choices can have life-and-death effects.

Backlash Builds, With Fresh Demands for Expulsion

The interruptions drew quick condemnation from Republicans and conservative media. The next day, Trump posted at length on TruthSocial, attacking Omar and Tlaib as “Low IQ” and calling them “crooked and corrupt politicians.” He also suggested they should be sent “back from where they came, as fast as possible,” echoing earlier remarks that have brought him criticism.

Because Omar is a U.S. citizen, deportation is not a legal option. Still, the comments helped drive online talk about other punishments, including censure or even expulsion.

Republicans call for action: Several House Republicans backed some form of discipline. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, posted that Omar’s conduct embarrassed Congress and argued for expulsion to restore order.
Conservative media turns up the volume: Fox News and prominent social media accounts pushed the story. Commentator Trish Regan shared a Facebook post about “new calls” to censure Omar and Tlaib after the State of the Union clash. In the replies, some commenters went further and asked for expulsion.
Public reaction splits fast: Videos of the incident spread on YouTube and other platforms, drawing angry comments demanding Omar’s removal. Meanwhile, supporters defended her right to object, saying political speech should not be punished simply because it’s uncomfortable.

Expulsion is difficult. It takes a two-thirds vote in the House, and Congress has used it only five times in U.S. history, usually for severe misconduct such as treason or corruption. Critics of the expulsion push say Omar’s behavior may have been disruptive, but it doesn’t meet that standard. They also warn that it could create a new way to silence opponents.

Omar’s Earlier Controversies and Long-Running Claims of Anti-Semitism

Omar has faced removal talk before. Since entering Congress in 2018, she has drawn intense scrutiny, including repeated accusations of anti-Semitism tied to comments about Israel and pro-Israel lobbying. In 2019, her remarks triggered bipartisan criticism and helped lead to a House resolution condemning hate.

2019 tweets: Omar’s “all about the Benjamins” phrase and comments about dual loyalties brought claims that she used anti-Semitic stereotypes. She apologized, while also saying she still wanted to criticize Israeli policy.
2021 comments: Omar compared the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, which prompted backlash, including criticism from Democratic leaders.
A debate that never stops: Allies describe Omar as outspoken on progressive causes, including Palestinian rights. Opponents say her statements cross into anti-Semitism. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have called for accountability, though past efforts to remove her have not succeeded.

While the State of the Union dispute centered on immigration, it revived these older arguments. Some conservatives claim the outburst fits a larger “anti-American” pattern, and some also repeat the anti-Semitism charge, even though Israel was not the focus of the speech. Omar has repeatedly denied anti-Semitic intent and says her criticism targets policy, not identity.

Democrats Push Back, Warning of Political Payback

Many Democrats have defended Omar and described the expulsion talk as partisan retaliation, especially against minority lawmakers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called the rhetoric “divisive and unhelpful” and urged lawmakers to focus on policy fights instead of personal attacks.

Omar calls for scrutiny of the arrest: In a press release, Omar demanded an investigation into Rahman’s arrest. She described the response as heavy-handed and said it sends a chilling signal about democratic rights.
Progressives rally around her: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) posted support, arguing that pushing back on lies is part of democracy, not disrespect. Groups such as Justice Democrats echoed that message.
What could come next: Republicans could try censure, which only needs a simple majority. That path looks more realistic than expulsion unless Democrats cross party lines. The episode also reflects a wider breakdown in House decorum, similar to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during a 2009 address.

Political strategists say the fight may fire up both sides before the midterms. Republicans can use it to brand Democrats as extreme, while Democrats can use it to energize voters against what they see as racism and Islamophobia.

Can Congress Actually Expel Omar?

The Constitution gives each chamber power to discipline members under Article I, Section 5. Still, expulsion remains rare, and most rule violations lead to lesser penalties. Legal experts often note that while House rules demand order during major speeches, Congress typically reserves expulsion for the most serious cases.

Past examples:
- 1861: The House expelled three members for supporting the Confederacy.
- 1980: Rep. Michael Myers was expelled after the Abscam bribery scandal.
- More recent attempts: Efforts to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2021 over inflammatory statements did not pass.

Free speech adds another layer of conflict. The First Amendment complicates any punishment tied to speech, although it does not give members unlimited freedom inside House proceedings. An ethics review is possible, but Omar’s allies also point to Trump’s own history of inflammatory language and call the outrage selective.

Social Media Erupts as Hashtags Take Over

The argument quickly moved online. #ExpelOmar trended on X (formerly Twitter) and drew millions of impressions as users posted clips, reactions, and calls for discipline. Conservatives praised Trump’s response, while progressives circulated Omar’s interview and defended her actions.

Common reactions online:
- Pro-expulsion: Posts calling Omar an embarrassment and demanding removal.
- Anti-expulsion: Posts arguing that speaking up against power should not be treated as a crime, often using #StandWithOmar.
- In-between voices: Others urged both parties to cool it, saying civility in Congress keeps getting worse.

Polling after the address shows a wide partisan split. A Rasmussen survey reported that 52% of Republicans support expulsion, while 12% of Democrats agree. Independents landed in the middle, with 35% in favor.

What This Could Mean for Congress Next

As lawmakers review Rahman’s arrest and draft possible resolutions, the fallout could shape how Congress handles both guests and members during major events. Some lawmakers may push tougher enforcement, while others may resist, warning that stricter rules can turn into political weapons.

For Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, the episode highlights the pressure minority members often face in high-profile fights. She has weathered past controversies, but continued attacks could still shape her 2026 campaign in Minnesota’s 5th District.

At a time when the country argues over immigration, protest, and political norms, this State of the Union clash shows how fragile trust has become. The coming weeks will likely bring more motions, more headlines, and more hard feelings, with little sign that either side plans to back down.

Politics

CNN’s Harry Enten Calls the 2028 Democratic Primary a “Clown Car”

Published

7 days ago

February 26, 2026

VORNews

ATLANTA, Georgia – CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.