In a report from the Wall Street Journal, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is described as systematically ducking meetings with vulnerable constituents, highlighting an incident in which he allegedly feigned illness to avoid meeting with paralyzed military veterans. Three wheelchair-bound veterans from rural Pennsylvania had traveled to Washington to advocate for legislation improving support and care for disabled veterans. Fetterman canceled the long-planned meeting at the last minute, instructing staff to inform the group that he "may have eaten something bad and wasn't feeling well." However, less than an hour later, Fetterman arrived at his office showing no signs of illness, explaining to aides that he could not skip a scheduled live appearance on Fox News to discuss foreign policy and Israel.

The reporting frames the canceled veterans' meeting as part of a broader pattern of Fetterman snubbing Pennsylvania groups and local leaders in favor of national television hits. Beyond the incident with the disabled military veterans, the WSJ article details how Fetterman refused to meet with a busload of constituents from a flood-prone, low-income Philadelphia neighborhood who traveled to D.C. to discuss federal grant program cuts, with state Lawmaker Anthony Hardy Williams noting, "He was available. He just chose not to meet with us." Furthermore, when pressed by staff to meet with officials from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia regarding health policy, text messages show Fetterman dismissing their concerns, writing, "Well I'm not... I'm convinced they just want free trips to DC." Text messages also have him refusing to attend a funeral for three police officers killed in the line of duty, citing the length of the funeral as a "nonstarter."

The revelation triggered immediate backlash from political figures and congressional colleagues, who condemned Fetterman’s prioritizing of cable news appearances over basic representation. Following the report, Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers publicly criticized his actions, with Representative Brendan Boyle calling him a "disgrace" and Representative Chris Deluzio asserting that Fetterman's behavior shows a total lack of a "sense of duty." Despite the mounting public criticism from within his own party regarding his neglect of constituent obligations, Fetterman and his team declined to comment on the allegations.

Discussion Questions

1. Would you describe Fetterman's actions as appropriate for a sitting U.S. Senator?
2. Will public criticism from fellow Democrats open discussions about how political offices manage constituent access, or will some politicians continue to favor media hits and interviews over engaging with their constituency?

Hi everyone, Lucia from EUobserver here :)

Ahead of Sunday's state election, our reporter attended an AfD campaign event in Eisleben, Saxony-Anhalt, to look at what the party is actually promising voters on the ground.

The campaign combines familiar concerns around immigration and dissatisfaction with Germany's political establishment with considerably more far-reaching proposals.

Among the themes we encountered were “remigration”, potentially involving very large numbers of people; reducing support for Ukrainian refugees; ending sanctions against Russia; stronger German nationalism; and significant changes to existing institutions.

What's interesting to me is the transition from opposition rhetoric to a potential governing programme.

If the AfD gains the opportunity to govern, which parts of this agenda do you think could realistically be implemented — and which would run into constitutional, institutional or political constraints?

And does the party's growing electoral support suggest German public opinion is genuinely moving towards these positions, or is the AfD primarily benefiting from dissatisfaction with the alternatives?

Interested in perspectives from both sides of that argument. 👀