The View from the Secure Location
Every year during the State of the Union address, one member of the presidential line of succession is chosen to be physically absent from the Capitol. This “Designated Survivor” is sequestered in a secure, undisclosed location to ensure continuity of government in the event of a catastrophic attack. This year, that duty fell to Democratic Congressman Mike Thompson of California. While he was kept safe from any physical threat, he was not shielded from the political rhetoric of the evening.
From his remote post, Thompson watched the proceedings like millions of Americans. His review of the event itself was straightforward: the mechanisms of government functioned without incident. “There were no attacks, everything was fine,” he reported, acknowledging the smooth procedural execution of the annual tradition.
A Partisan Divide in the Aftermath
However, Thompson’s assessment of the content was far less neutral. He drew a sharp distinction between the event’s security and the substance of the speech delivered by the president. His critique was pointed and succinct: “— with the exception of what the president had to say.”
This comment underscores the deep partisan divisions that characterize modern American politics, especially during set-piece events like the State of the Union. For the designated survivor, the threat wasn’t to the building or the people in it, but to the discourse and direction of the nation as presented from the podium. Thompson’s role, typically a symbolic safeguard against physical disaster, inadvertently placed him as a witness to what he and many in his party view as a political one.
The position of Designated Survivor is meant to be apolitical—a practical precaution. Yet, the individual who holds it is inherently a political actor. Congressman Thompson’s reaction highlights how even this vestige of Cold War-era continuity planning is now viewed through the lens of contemporary political conflict. His remarks remind us that in today’s environment, evaluations of presidential addresses are less about pageantry and more about profound ideological disagreements over the nation’s path forward.
« Fact-Checking the Economic Claims from the State of the Union Address