A Historic Boycott Deepens Washington’s State of the Union Divide

WASHINGTON — More than 70 members of Congress are expected to boycott President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, an extraordinary act of protest that underscores the widening chasm in American political life. What was once a largely ceremonial evening of constitutional ritual has instead become a flashpoint in a broader struggle over legitimacy, decorum and dissent.

According to lawmakers involved, at least 72 Democrats plan to skip the president’s address to a joint session of Congress, some choosing instead to participate in alternative programming organized by advocacy groups and independent media outlets. The scale of the boycott appears to be one of the largest in modern history, reflecting both the intensity of partisan divisions and the evolving ways elected officials seek to communicate with constituents outside traditional institutional settings.

For the president’s allies, the boycott represents a breach of tradition and a sign of political immaturity. “It’s shameful,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, arguing that attendance at the State of the Union is a matter of respect for the office, regardless of party. Johnson noted that each House member represents roughly 750,000 constituents and suggested that absence diminishes their voice at a constitutionally significant moment.

Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators echoed that sentiment across television networks. On Fox News, host Jesse Watters called the boycott “historic,” questioning why Democrats would skip what he described as one of the few remaining moments of national unity. Others framed the move as inconsistent with past calls for bipartisanship made by Democratic leaders.

Yet Democrats planning to boycott reject the premise that attendance equals unity. Representative Yasamin Ansari, who said she will not attend, argued that participation risks “normalizing” what she described as policies she fundamentally opposes. Instead, she plans to spotlight a constituent facing prolonged immigration detention, bringing attention to what she views as humanitarian concerns.

The Democratic National Committee chairman, Ken Martin, said he was leaving the decision to individual lawmakers. “Each has to make their own choice,” he said in a television interview, while acknowledging that some members do not wish to sit through what they anticipate will be a sharply partisan speech.

Not all Democrats agree. Senator John Fetterman said he intends to attend and urged colleagues to maintain decorum. “You respect the office,” he said, while cautioning against disruptive displays that might detract from substantive debate. His remarks reflect a quieter tension within the party over tactics: whether protest is more powerful inside the chamber or outside it.

The State of the Union, mandated by Article II of the Constitution, has evolved dramatically since its origins as a written report delivered to Congress. Modern addresses are carefully choreographed spectacles, often stretching beyond two hours and punctuated by applause lines and invited guests whose stories reinforce the president’s themes. President Trump has reportedly told advisers he expects this year’s speech to last nearly three hours, emphasizing economic growth, tax policy and national security.

Cable news networks have treated the evening as both civic ritual and political theater. Earlier in the day, anchors from major outlets attended a White House luncheon with the president, receiving a preview of themes likely to appear in the address. Among them was Jake Tapper, who reported that the president plans to argue the country is on the cusp of “the best three years economically in the nation’s history.” The president also signaled he would call for additional tax cuts and discuss negotiations with Iran over nuclear policy.

Conservative media personalities, including commentator Stephen A. Smith, criticized the boycott from a different angle, arguing that refusing to attend undermines claims to moral high ground. “There’s got to be an adult in the room,” he said, framing participation as a test of democratic resilience rather than partisan alignment.

Beyond the rhetoric, the boycott raises practical and symbolic questions. Will empty seats behind the president become the defining image of the night? Or will alternative events siphon attention from the chamber itself? Several advocacy organizations plan to stream parallel programming, featuring lawmakers and guests intended to highlight policy disagreements and social issues.

Political scientists note that congressional boycotts of presidential addresses are rare but not unprecedented. Still, the scale now appears unusual. Whether it signals a new norm or a temporary escalation may depend on how voters interpret the gesture. Midterm elections loom, and both parties are keenly aware that televised moments can crystallize narratives that endure far beyond a single evening.

For many Americans, the State of the Union once symbolized continuity amid disagreement — a reminder that, despite partisan divides, leaders gathered in one room to fulfill a constitutional duty. This year, that symbolism itself is contested terrain. In the absence of consensus about what unity means, even showing up — or not — has become an act of political speech.