How State of the Union Boycotts, Outbursts, and Responses Have Changed Over Time 

The State of the Union was once a moment of national unity. A president lays out an agenda. Members of Congress sit in the same room. The country watches together. 

Not anymore. 

This year, at least 47 Democratic Members of Congress reportedly plan to skip President Trump’s address.  

Some will attend a “People’s State of the Union” on the National Mall. Others will head to a “State of the Swamp” event at the National Press Club. A few are simply staying home. 

Even those who attend the speech won’t necessarily be coming in the spirit of unity. Heckles and disruptive outbursts have become a regular occurrence during State of the Union addresses, from Republicans and Democrats alike. 

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at how the State of the Union has evolved over the past half century

A Record-Breaking State of the Union Boycott? 

This isn’t the first time that Members of Congress are boycotting the State of the Union.

The first major, organized boycott came in 1971, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus and some of their allies refused to attend President Nixon’s State of the Union after the President refused a meeting with the Caucus.  

That boycott reached 12 members, a record that has stood for over 50 years. Boycotts after that initial one were rare and small, at least until President Trump’s first term.  

A major boycott of the 2018 State of the Union address happened just two weeks after President Trump allegedly called Haiti and African nations “s—hole countries.” At least 12 Democrats skipped the speech, tying the 1971 record. A handful decided to skip President Trump’s speeches in the ensuing years as well.  

If the 47 House and Senate Democrats follow through on their threat, 2026 will be the largest State of the Union boycott so far.  

The Rise of the Outburst 

Skipping the speech is one form of protest. Staying and disrupting it is another. 

In recent years, many more Members of Congress have chosen the latter form.  

According to Politico, the first disruptive outburst at a State of the Union was in 1975 when a group of freshman Democrats stood up and walked out before President Ford could even begin speaking. 

That seems tame by today’s standards, but it was a big deal at the time. Lawmakers got increasingly aggressive and mean-spirited over the years, and Politico collected some of the lowlights: 

• Democrats booing President Bush over Social Security in 2005 

• Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in 2009, when he said his healthcare plan would not cover unauthorized immigrants. (This one actually wasn’t a State of the Union, it was a special address to Congress; but it’s a key part of the pattern) 

• Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing President Trump’s speech behind him after the 2020 State of the Union 

• Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert shouting “You put them there, 13 of them!” at President Biden in 2022, referring to the 13 American troops who died during the Afghanistan withdrawal 

• Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shouting “liar!” when President Biden accused Republicans of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare in 2023 

One of the most memorable outbursts came from last year’s speech. Democratic Rep. Al Green stood up and shouted “you don’t have a mandate!” while waving his cane in the air shortly after President Trump began speaking in 2025. After refusing to yield, Rep. Green was removed by the Sergeant at Arms and later censured by the House. 

Sadly, the loudest, most extreme voices in American politics reward these theatrics. Rep. Boebert fundraised off her confrontation within hours, while Rep. Green’s removal went viral, driving a surge of online attention and small-dollar donations. 

State of the Union Response: The Right Way to Disagree 

There is another way for the opposition party to show its disagreement with the president’s State of the Union address: the response.  

Since 1966, when congressional Republican leaders responded to President Lyndon Johnson days after his address, the opposition party has offered a rebuttal. Over time, that rebuttal evolved into a direct address to the American people – usually delivered by a rising governor, senator, or House member. 

It’s a counterargument, not a protest. 

The speaker typically acknowledges the challenges facing the country, disputes the president’s diagnosis of those challenges, and offers an alternative set of priorities. If the president calls for expanding a program, the opposition may argue for reform. If the president touts economic gains, the response may highlight families who feel left behind. If the president frames the moment as progress, the response may frame it as warning. 

The format has evolved over the years. For the first few decades, it was almost always given by the opposition party’s House and Senate leaders, and there were usually multiple speakers. The response also usually came a few days after the actual State of the Union address was given. 

Some responses were more experimental than others. Under President Reagan, the Democratic responses often included pre-taped “man on the street” interviews with voters, as opposed to pre-written speeches by politicians. 

It wasn’t until 1995 that the State of the Union response took on the format we now recognize. That year, New Jersey Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman delivered a rebuttal to President Clinton that broke with past practice. She was not a House or Senate majority or minority leader. She spoke alone. She delivered prepared remarks directly to camera. And her response aired immediately after the president’s speech. She was also the first woman to give a solo response.  

That template – one speaker, not a congressional leader, speaking straight to the American people in the moments right after the address – has defined nearly every response since. 

And choosing a woman to deliver that 1995 State of the Union response foreshadowed a later trend. When Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response this week, she will be the fifth woman in a row to do so and the 14th woman in the last 30 years – noteworthy considering Congress and governors’ mansions are historically dominated by men. 

The Constitution requires the President to report on the State of the Union. It does not require applause or agreement from all sides. 

But it does assume a basic willingness to show up, listen, and then argue your case. 

The State of the Union response reflects that order. In an era of boycotts and viral outbursts, that may be the most underrated civic habit we have left.