By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The National Governors Association has announced it will no longer facilitate a White House event after President Trump’s administration planned to invite only Republican governors. Eighteen Democratic governors also stated they would boycott a traditional White House dinner, citing the exclusion of all governors as a departure from productive, bipartisan tradition. The White House maintains the president has discretion over White House invitations. This partisan exclusion marks a significant shift for the annual meeting, a rare bipartisan gathering where governors historically convene to discuss pressing state issues.
Read the original article here
Governors have made it clear they won’t be attending a planned meeting at the White House, and the reason is rather straightforward: the invitation list was exclusively for Republican governors. This decision by the White House to exclude Democratic governors has led to the cancellation of the event by the National Governors Association (NGA), as they view it as a partisan move that goes against the tradition of their meetings. It’s certainly a development that highlights the deep political divides we’re experiencing, and it’s interesting to see how different entities are reacting.
The NGA’s CEO expressed disappointment with the administration’s choice to make the event partisan. While “disappointment” might seem like a mild word to some, in the context of intergovernmental relations, it signals a clear disapproval and a departure from expected norms. The organization, which typically aims to be a bipartisan forum for governors, found this unilateral exclusion of a significant portion of its membership unacceptable. This move by the White House, in their view, turned what should have been a collaborative event into a politically charged one, undermining the very purpose of the NGA’s gathering.
This partisan approach isn’t entirely surprising to many observers, given the current political climate and the administration’s past actions. When an invitation list is deliberately curated to exclude one political party, it inevitably sends a message of division. For the NGA, maintaining a non-partisan stance is crucial for its credibility and effectiveness. Therefore, their decision to cancel the meeting rather than proceed with a segregated guest list speaks volumes about their commitment to inclusivity and their refusal to be a part of a politically motivated event.
The response from the Republican governors themselves has been varied, with some expressing understanding that the President has the prerogative to invite whomever he chooses to the White House, while others are doubling down on the idea of holding their own Republican-only gathering. This latter point, however, seems to be a way to frame the situation as a choice by the Republican governors rather than a direct rejection of the White House’s exclusionary invitation. It’s a subtle distinction, but it highlights the political maneuvering that often accompanies such situations.
Some have pointed out that this situation is particularly noteworthy given that the White House had previously excluded certain Democratic governors from other events, such as Maryland Governor Wes Moore, the nation’s only Black governor, and Colorado Governor Jared Polis, the nation’s only openly gay male governor, from an NGA dinner. These earlier exclusions, combined with the more recent wholesale invitation to only Republicans, paint a picture of a deliberate strategy to isolate and marginalize Democratic leaders.
The reaction from those who believe in a more unified approach has been largely positive, praising the governors who have stood by the principle of inclusivity. They see this as a rare moment of sanity and a necessary pushback against divisive tactics. The hope is that this will encourage more instances of elected officials from both sides of the aisle to prioritize collaboration over partisan division. There’s a sentiment that this kind of resistance, even if symbolic, is a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, some critics are less impressed, viewing the resistance as purely symbolic and lacking real substance. They argue that true capitulation occurs when governors from “red states” refuse to cooperate with federal initiatives, especially when it comes to issues like voter data. The criticism is that while refusing a meeting invitation is a visible statement, it doesn’t necessarily translate into tangible actions that challenge the administration’s broader agenda. This perspective suggests that more direct forms of protest, like withholding cooperation or even federal taxes, would be more impactful.
There’s also a broader discussion about how the National Governors Association could have handled the situation differently, perhaps by organizing their own independent event with all governors invited, regardless of party affiliation. This would have allowed them to uphold their tradition of bipartisan dialogue and demonstrate their commitment to unity, even in the face of White House exclusion. The idea is that the NGA, as an organization, should have the fortitude to rise above political distractions and ensure that its events remain inclusive and focused on the shared responsibilities of governing.
Ultimately, this event serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing political polarization in the country. The decision by Republican governors not to attend a White House meeting that deliberately excluded their Democratic colleagues highlights a willingness, albeit perhaps limited, to push back against what is perceived as divisive leadership. It’s a complex situation with various interpretations, but the core issue remains the administration’s choice to employ partisan tactics in an arena traditionally reserved for bipartisan cooperation.