National

Saturday's horrific mass shooting in Monterey Park, California will likely be left out of the FBI's nationwide crime statistics, as neither city nor county officials there are using the Justice Department's new crime reporting system.

Why it matters: The country's 18,600 law enforcement agencies have been slow to adopt the Justice Department's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) — which means that all manner of crimes are being undercounted.

NIBRS is designed to collect detailed data for use by policymakers, academics, and others — but is useless without thorough and accurate feeds from local law enforcement.

Catch up quick: On January 1, 2021, NIBRS became the only mechanism for law enforcement agencies to voluntarily report crimes to the FBI.

It includes all types of crimes, from identity theft and property destruction to violent assaults and acts of hate.

"Compared to the previous crime data collection system, NIBRS collects data about 47 more offenses and more detailed data about each victim, offender, person arrested, and property stolen or damaged for each individual crime incident," the Justice Department says.

Where it stands: 33% of law enforcement agencies are not feeding data into NIBRS.

That includes some huge police departments, like those in Los Angeles and New York City — two of the country's largest.

Since 2016, the Justice Department has offered training and $120 million in grants to help counteract the foot-dragging, with limited success.

Driving the news: Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta last week beseeched the nation's mayors for help getting local law enforcement agencies to adopt the system.

"This year, law enforcement agency participation in submitting all crime statistics to the FBI fell 22%," she said at the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting on Capitol Hill.

"That number is even starker for hate crimes: 93% of agencies reported hate crime statistics in 2020, but only 65% reported in 2021."

The official numbers reflected by NIBRS don't reflect the reality on the ground. Hate crimes have soared in recent years, as documented by groups like the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and the Anti-Defamation League.

By the numbers: A new Justice Department report shows the number of law enforcement agencies submitting crime statistics to NIBRS decreased from 12,742 in 2021 to 12,725 last year.

The decrease was partly technical, the agency said, indicating administrative changes in reporting structures — but it also reflected broader problems preventing full implementation of the more robust system.

Departments sitting on the sidelines cite cost, lack of personnel, and technical constraints.

Yes, but: "We cannot be effective in prevention and prosecution of hate crimes without more accurate and comprehensive data collection and reporting," Gupta said in her speech.

Zoom out: Regardless of whether the mass shooting in the heavily Asian American city of Monterey Park is deemed a hate crime, it won't be represented in the NIBRS — which is supposed to be the central repository for all U.S. crime statistics.

The intrigue: Florida and California — two of the most populous states — had the lowest percentages of law enforcement agencies feeding stats to the FBI in 2021, as Axios' Russell Contreras reported.

A joint Axios/Marshall Project report published last June found that a lack of adequate reporting could compromise NIBRS' utility.

"It's going to be really hard for policymakers to look at what crime looks like in their own community and compare it to similar communities," Jacob Kaplan, a criminologist at Princeton University, told Axios and The Marshall Project.

The bottom line: Without more comprehensive reporting, the FBI database is neither accurate nor predictive — foiling the agency's goal of building a sophisticated tool with pattern-detection powers.

These shortcomings could come under a glaring spotlight as crime becomes an issue in the 2024 election cycle.

Go deeper: Check out the FBI's interactive map to see if your community is using NIBRS.

The Monterey Park shooting exposes a major problem with crime data

Too few police departments are feeding crime statistics to the FBI's national database.

Illustration of a handgun tangled and strung up by calculator tape with numbers printed

Crime

Politics & Policy

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Technology

House Democrats are forcing House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to make good on his vow to remove several high-profile members from their committees – including one that would require a risky floor vote.

Why it matters: It’s the latest battle in an increasingly heated partisan conflict over committee assignments that began when Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted to remove Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) from their panels in 2021.

Republicans said at the time that the votes to boot Greene and Gosar set a new precedent and vowed to take revenge.

Driving the news: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) sent McCarthy a letter on Saturday officially renominating Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to the Intelligence Committee despite McCarthy repeatedly pledging to remove them.

Because it's a permanent select committee, rather than an ordinary standing committee, McCarthy can unilaterally block Jeffries' appointments.

McCarthy has targeted Swalwell due to his past association with a Chinese spy, and Schiff for allegedly "lying" in his promotion of the Steele dossier.

"The denial of seats to duly elected Members of the House Democratic Caucus runs counter to the serious and sober mission of the Intelligence Committee," Jeffries wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Punchbowl News.

What caught our eye: Jeffries also took aim at Republicans for giving Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committee seats despite revelations the Long Island freshman fabricated huge chunks of his resume and biography on the campaign trail.

But Jeffries has also indicated Democrats plan to let Republicans own Santos rather than taking action against him themselves.

What we're watching: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Monday sent a letter to House Democrats' steering committee asking to be reappointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

"I'd be able to continue to offer a unique perspective as a Somali-American, a refugee, and the only Africa-born Member of Congress," Omar wrote.

McCarthy has said he will try to remove her from that panel over comments she has made about Israel that colleagues in both parties labeled anti-Semitic.

Note: In a "dear colleague" letter on Sunday, Jeffries wrote, "It is my expectation that no returning member of the House Democratic Caucus will involuntarily lose a seat related to an existing committee assignment."

But the letter only covered standing committees – which excludes the Intelligence Committee – and Axios is told that the quote only referred to members keeping their seats even as the overall number of Democrats on committees shrunk.

What's next: Unlike with the Intelligence Committee, Republicans will either have to block every members' committee assignments or allow them to pass and then hold a floor vote on a resolution booting Omar from the panel.

That floor fight is all but certain to happen, sources say. "Ms. Omar currently serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is expected to [be] re-appointed by the Steering and Policy Committee," a Democratic leadership aide told Axios.

It could also turn messy for Republican leadership, as several moderate House Republicans have voiced discomfort or even firm opposition to removing Democrats from committees. They can only lose a handful of votes.

Democrats tee up showdown with McCarthy on committee seats

Democrats are expected to try to put Rep. Ilhan Omar back on Foreign Affairs.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hands the speaker's gavel to Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the House chamber.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.

House Democrats

Whats Next

Axios What's Next

Sales of huge pickups are sustaining carmakers, bringing in record profits — yet pedestrian and road safety advocates say today's massive trucks are a hazard, given their size, weight, and driver blind spots.

In a new Axios Visuals special project, we looked back over the past 50 years to examine the societal and lifestyle changes behind pickups' ever-increasing size.

Driving the news: America has a unique love affair with pickup trucks — the Ford F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. for more than 40 years. But during that time, pickups have become bigger, bulkier, and more high-tech.

In the 1980s, about half of pickup trucks were categorized as small or midsize. But by the 2010s, small pickups had nearly vanished as Americans increasingly bought into the big truck lifestyle. 

As pickups transitioned from workhorses to lifestyle vehicles, their design shifted accordingly: Cabs expanded to accommodate more passengers, while beds shrank.

The first generation of F-150s was 36% cab and 64% bed by length. By 2021, the ratio flipped, with 63% cab and 37% bed.

Between the lines: Survey data from vehicle research firm Strategic Vision shows a third of today’s pickup owners rarely or never use their truck for hauling, while two-thirds rarely or never use it for towing. 

Instead, experts say, much of the big pickup mania is being driven by consumers' self-image.

"Today, personality and imagery are playing an even more important role in how consumers choose which truck is right for them," Strategic Vision researcher Alexander Edwards told Axios. 

The firm surveys owners each year about the character traits they associate with their vehicle. Two words set F-150 owners apart: “powerful” and “rugged.” 

         Data: Strategic Vision. Chart: Will Chase/Axios

Yes, but: One result of supersized trucks: greater risks to pedestrians and other drivers. 

Drivers of today’s trucks sit much higher, creating a blind spot where small children or wheelchair users are hidden from view.

         Graphic: Rahul Mukherjee/Axios

Moreover, pickups’ weight increased by 32% between 1990 and 2021, meaning they strike pedestrians with more force. 

Plus, the tall front of a truck strikes pedestrians in the torso or head — home to vital organs — whereas the lower hoods of cars typically strike pedestrians in the legs.

Pickups also tend to be more dangerous in collisions between differently sized vehicles — car drivers are 2.5 times more likely to die when colliding with a pickup as compared to another car, per a 2019 study.

The other side: Ford says "safety is a top priority," and points to safety-related technologies such as pedestrian detection sensors, automatic emergency braking, 360-degree cameras, and more, some of which now come standard.

Other pickup manufacturers have added similar features.

The 2022 F-150 earned a "top safety pick" rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and earned "good" or "superior" ratings in various crash tests, including those with other vehicles, and with child and adult pedestrians.

What's next: While they’ve probably maxed out in terms of size, pickup trucks are still evolving to keep up with Americans’ changing lifestyles. 

And now that they're going electric, many offer capabilities and bonus features that aren’t available from gasoline or diesel trucks, like better torque and faster acceleration, and the ability to power a worksite, campsite, or tailgate party without burning gasoline.

Methodology: Data on U.S. truck sales comes from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. All survey data, including truck usage and imagery data, is from the Strategic Vision New Vehicle Experience Study. Data on collision death rates and curb weights are from Monfort and Nolan (2019). Trends in aggressivity and driver risk for cars, SUVs, and pickups: Vehicle incompatibility from 1989 to 2016. Traffic Injury Prevention. 3D models were licensed from Ford through TurboSquid.

How pickup trucks became so imposing

Small pickups have nearly vanished as Americans have bought into big truck lifestyle.

 A 1970s-era Ford F-150 as compared to a modern version.

A 1970s-era Ford F-150 compared to a modern version. Graphic: Will Chase/Axios

Automakers

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) nominated Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) to the Intelligence Committee in a letter to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Saturday first obtained by Punchbowl News.

Why it matters: McCarthy has said he will deny Schiff's and Swalwell's nominations to the committee, though Jeffries told McCarthy in the letter that doing so would run "counter to the serious and sober mission of the Intelligence Committee" and would lay bare Republican's "apparent double standard" in designating committee assignments.

While McCarthy has said he plans to oust Schiff and Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee, embattled Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), who has been facing calls to resign from Republicans and Democrats for fabricating details about his background throughout his campaign, received two committee assignments last week.

Far-right Republicans Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) also received committee assignments again — reversing 2021 bipartisan votes to remove their assignments for either making or promoting violent and inflammatory rhetoric against their political opponents.

What they're saying: "At the same time that Republicans have threatened to deny seats on the Intelligence Committee to clearly qualified democratic members, serial fraudster George Santos has been placed on two standing committees of the House and welcomed into your conference," Jeffries letter to McCarthy reads.

"The apparent double standard risks undermining the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is so desperately needed in Congress," it continues. 

"I urge you to honor past practice of the House of Representatives and our mutual interest in working together for the good of the American people by accepting my recommendation of Adam Schiff to serve as Ranking Member and Eric Swalwell to continue his service as a Member of the Intelligence Committee."

Schiff said on social media he was "proud" of Jeffries' nomination to the committee and that McCarthy threatened his removal "to placate his right-wing" but following through with it "will damage the committee’s independence."

"Along with his committee on conspiracy theories, he is doing grave damage to national security," Schiff tweeted on Monday.

The big picture: Jeffries defended Greene's and Gosar's committee assignment removals, saying the actions were bipartisan and justified after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

McCarthy, however, has said their removals set a new standard, which Republicans would not hesitate to use to remove Democrats from assignments.

McCarthy has maintained that Swalwell's brief association with a Chinese spy made him ineligible for a seat on the committee, though he's never been accused of wrongdoing and cut ties with the spy after being alerted by federal investigators.

McCarthy also considers Schiff, one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee, disqualified from serving as ranking member for promoting the Steele dossier, which alleged extensive ties between former President Trump and Russia but was unverified.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has also been targeted by McCarthy for removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee over her 2019 comments on a pro-Israel lobbying group's influence on Congress, which members of both parties criticized at the time as anti-Semitic.

Omar, who has apologized for the remark, is expected to be named to the committee by Democrats this week according to Punchbowl News, though the full House would have to vote to remove her from the panel.

Go deeper: White House slams far-right Republicans' committee assignments

Editor's note: This story has been updated with a tweet from Rep. Adam Schiff.

Jeffries says GOP has “double standard” on committee assignments

House Majority Leader McCarthy is expected to deny Democratic nominations to the Intelligence Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaking in the Capitol on Jan. 12.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaking in the Capitol on Jan. 12. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Congress

A former FBI special agent in charge of counterintelligence at the bureau's New York Field Office was charged and arrested over allegedly violating U.S. sanctions on a Russian oligarch, the Department of Justice announced Monday.

The big picture: The Justice Department alleged Charles McGonigal, who retired from the FBI in 2018, conspired with another defendant to provide services to Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in violation of U.S. sanctions imposed on the oligarch in 2018.

McGonigal and the second defendant, Sergey Shestakov, a former Soviet and Russian diplomat who later interpreted Russian for U.S. courts and government offices, were charged with a total of five counts, including conspiring to violate and evade U.S. sanctions, conspiring to commit money laundering and committing money laundering.

The department said they were both arrested on Saturday and would go before a federal judge in a Manhattan court on Monday.

What they're saying: "They both previously worked with Deripaska to attempt to have his sanctions removed, and, as public servants, they should have known better," Damian Williams, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement.

"Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska perform global malign influence on behalf of the Kremlin and are associated with acts of bribery, extortion, and violence," Michael Driscoll, assistant director in charge of the New York Field Office, said in a separate statement.

"After sanctions are imposed, they must be enforced equally against all U.S. citizens in order to be successful. There are no exceptions for anyone, including a former FBI official like Mr. McGonigal," Driscoll's statement continued.

The big picture: The Justice Department alleged that McGonigal and Shestakov in 2021 agreed to investigate one of Deripaska's rival Russian oligarchs in exchange for concealed payments from Deripaska.

The investigation was negotiated and agreed through electronic communications with an agent working on behalf of Deripaska, and the party used shell companies and a forged signature to create a contract that outlined the services and to receive the payments from Deripaska.

The department said both McGonigal and Shestakov were aware their actions violated U.S. sanctions because they had previously attempted to have the sanctions against Deripaska lifted.

Shestakov was also charged with making false statements in a recorded interview with FBI agents about his and McGonigal’s relationship with Deripaska’s agent, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Worth noting: Deripaska was among the dozens of people connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin who received sanctions in 2018 for meddling in the U.S. elections.

Go deeper: Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska charged with violating sanctions

Former top FBI official charged with violating sanctions on Russian oligarch

The DOJ alleged the former special agent conspired to provide services to billionaire Oleg Deripaska.

The FBI seal at its headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Russia

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

World

Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego announced his 2024 bid for U.S. Senate on Monday, launching a long-expected challenge to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema for her seat.

Why it matters: The liberal Marine veteran’s face-off against the newly-Independent senator has the potential to split the vote in a general election and dilute a Democratic candidate’s strength in a cycle with few Senate bright spots for the party.

Sinema has yet to confirm whether she'll run for re-election.

The big picture: Last cycle’s results showed that Arizona still prefers moderate candidates, as voters rejected those seen as too outside the political norm.

The state is pretty evenly split among Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters, which has rewarded someone like Sen. Sinema, who's resisted being pulled to the left by her colleagues.

Newsweek first reported Gallego's Senate announcement plans.

Zoom in: Gallego has been critical of Sinema, most recently saying that she put “her own interests ahead of getting things done for Arizonans” when she changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent in December. 

Sinema has earned praise from Republicans and ire from Democrats as she often wielded outsized power, along with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, in what was an evenly divided Senate.

The backdrop: But Gallego has also been critical of the rest of the Democratic Party, particularly for, at times, under-investing in Latino voters and ceding some ground to the GOP with this core constituency. 

As chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ (CHC) campaign arm, BOLD PAC, Rep. Gallego helped elect nine new Latino House Democrats in part by spending $6M on supporting Latino incumbents and candidates — the group’s largest independent expenditure in its 21 years. 

What they're saying: In a phone interview with Axios earlier this month, Rep. Gallego talked about some of those intra-party concerns from the 2022 midterms.

"The danger wasn’t that Latinos were going to vote for Republicans, but that you’d have a lot of these different types of PACs that normally would invest in Latino voters no longer investing in Latino voters, and that creates a system where only conservative Latinos come out and vote," he said.

"We've been able to beat that back among Democratic organizations and allies and the party, but it was not that easy to do."

What to watch: Gallego was re-elected as BOLD PAC chairman for the 2024 cycle, and while the CHC's rules don't bar him from serving in that role while also seeking a Senate seat, it's unlikely he'd be able to find time for both.

Despite speculation, Phoenix Mayor (and Gallego's ex-wife) Kate Gallego told Axios she does not intend to run for the Arizona Senate seat or for Ruben's House seat.

Phoenix

Phoenix Members

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Phoenix newsletter.

Axios Phoenix Thought Bubble

Phoenix Alerts

Axios Phoenix

Democrat Ruben Gallego challenging Kyrsten Sinema in 2024 Senate race

The liberal Marine vet has been openly critical of the state's centrist senator.

Ruben Gallego (L) and Kyrsten Sinema (R). Photos: Getty Images

Senate

Markets

Axios Markets

Closer

Axios Closer

Share of wage and salary workers represented by unions, 2022

Data: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Chart: Erin Davis/Axios Visuals

Union support hit near-record levels last year, with high-profile organizing at Amazon and Starbucks grabbing headlines. Yet at the same time union membership hit an all-time low in 2022. 

Why it matters: The shortcomings can be pinned on a powerful mix of forces: institutional labor's missteps, well-funded corporate pushback, and weak federal/local laws have all helped suppress U.S union membership.

Driving the news: Data from the Labor Department, out last week, showed that despite an increase of 273,000 new unionized workers in 2022, union membership as a share of the workforce is at an all-time low. 

Between the lines: Critics say that Big Labor hasn't adapted to the new realities of business in the modern era, nor have they given enough support to grassroots workers who are organizing on their own. 

"Part of the fault is on the labor movement," said Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. "They're organizing the same way they always have," she added.

For years in the labor movement there'd been talk that at some point there'd be a resurgence of interest in unions, and that organizers would have to be ready, said Jon Hiatt, former general counsel at the AFL-CIO.

And yet organizers are "blowing this opportunity," he said. They need to coordinate with workers on the ground, and do more to help newly organized workers land contracts.

Flashback:  Last summer AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler pledged to increase the number of union members in the U.S. by 1 million workers over the next decade. 

The 2022 data underline why the goal is too modest within a workforce of 164 million. "You'd have to organize 5 million to make a dent," Bronfenbrenner said.

Meanwhile: Companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars fighting organizing efforts with little to fear from the National Labor Relations Board, which can only levy weak penalties when companies illegally move to fire organizers, or push back in other ways. 

An analysis from 2019 found that companies spent $340 million annually on "union avoiding" consultants who help deter organizers. It's likely that number is higher today. 

Congress just increased NLRB funding for the first time in nearly a decade, to $299 million.

Plus: One legal catalyst for the decline in union membership was a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in 2018, which said that unions could no longer force workers to pay dues.

Since then, the Freedom Foundation, an anti-union group, says it’s helped 133,000 workers leave public-sector unions. 

Meanwhile, the public sector has lost workers amid a labor shortage. The unionization rate dropped in this area from 33.9% in 2018, to 33.1% in 2022, an all-time low.

Other labor advocates say an increasingly pro-business judiciary is also making it difficult.

Yes, but: The membership numbers don't yet reflect all the workers who are organizing now and trying to get their first contract. That's the agreement where an employer lays out wages, benefits, etc., and it's when folks start paying dues. All the Starbucks and Amazon workers fall into this camp, for example. 

It now takes a record 465 days on average to get a contract signed.

What they're saying: The AFL-CIO celebrated the increase in members overall, in a blog post on its website. 

"This is a watershed moment. This is the moment to go big and be bold," said Steve Smith, spokesperson, AFL-CIO, in a statement to Axios. "As a movement we're leveraging every available resource to support worker-led organizing and major new initiatives to ensure any worker who wants a union on the job can have one."

Yet anti-union forces hailed the overall drop in union representation, arguing workers shouldn’t be forced to pay union dues, or submit to Big Labor’s political agenda.  

In a paradoxical way, the strong economy might be hurting the labor movement because workers have felt empowered to demand accommodations and ask for raises without the protection of a union, Lightcast chief economist Bledi Taska tells Axios.

"The ROI for unions decreased because the market was providing this power to employees, whereas before it was unions that [provided] this power to employees," Taska says.

Editor's Note: This story has been corrected to say union support neared a record in 2022. (The record was hit in the 1950s.)

Why labor's surging popularity isn't translating to union membership

High profile labor organizing hasn't boosted overall union numbers.

Labor unions

Two more Cherokee tribes say they are entitled to a non-voting member of Congress, countering claims by the Cherokee Nation they are the only ones who were promised a seat. 

Why it matters: The dispute over a congressional delegate, outlined in a treaty that forcibly removed Cherokees from ancestral homelands, shows how complicated matters evolve when promises aren't kept to Indigenous people for nearly two centuries. 

Details: The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina challenge the notion that the 1835 Treaty of New Echota applies exclusively to the Cherokee Nation, one of the largest tribal nations in the U.S. 

They say that treaty was signed by the Cherokee people — not the Cherokee Nation — and President Andrew Jackson, then ratified by the Senate.

The treaty promised a nonvoting House delegate to represent the Cherokees. 

Catch up quickly: Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. named Kim Teehee, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, as the tribe's first delegate to the U.S. House in 2019 after he took office.

The appointment came after years of research by the Cherokee Nation scholars, who concluded they were promised a congressional delegate in the treaty. 

That treaty forced the Cherokee Nation to move from ancestral homelands in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee to present-day Oklahoma. Around 4,000 died along what is known as the "Trail of Tears."

Despite promises by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a "path toward welcoming a Delegate from the Cherokee Nation into the People's House," Democrats failed to seat her last year. 

What they're saying: "All three of those federally recognized tribes have all of the treaty rights that the United States signed with the Cherokee people," Victoria Holland, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians appointed delegate, told Axios. 

"Oftentimes, there's only one story that's told, and people still think that there is only one Cherokee Nation, but that's not historically accurate."

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Principal Chief Richard Sneed said in a statement the tribe also believes they are afforded a delegate and vowed to make it happen.

Cherokee Nation's long-awaited delegate faces a tribal challenge

Two more Cherokee tribes say they, too, are entitled to a non-voting member of Congress.

Monday's top stories