Checklist: Report the facts about Bernie Sanders’ record on the Holocaust Memorial Council; note his appointment year and attendance record; outline the council’s role and membership; present reactions from fellow board members and a bipartisan effort to replace him; place this in the context of rising antisemitism and oversight concerns.
Sen. Bernie Sanders was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council in 2007 and, according to museum records, has not attended any of its meetings over the last 18 years. The council meets twice a year to oversee the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C., which sits roughly two miles from the Capitol. For a senator who often talks about civic duty and public service, the claimed absence from every biannual meeting raises simple questions about participation and responsibility. The basic facts are straightforward: an appointed member appears not to have participated in the council’s work for nearly two decades.
The museum council was established by Congress in 1980 and includes a large slate of members appointed across branches of government and the executive. Sanders was one of the five members appointed by the Senate, a position that carries an expectation of engagement with the council’s mission. The council’s responsibilities include preserving Holocaust memory, supporting education, and advising on museum priorities, duties that require attendance at the scheduled meetings. When a senator is routinely absent, the council’s ability to carry out those duties without full participation becomes harder to defend to the public.
Sanders (I-Vt.) was appointed in 2007 to the Holocaust Memorial Council, which meets twice a year to oversee the landmark DC museum located about 2 miles from the Capitol.
Records supplied to The Post by museum staff show that Sanders, who mainstreamed democratic socialism with campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, has missed every meeting of the board since his appointment.
Fellow council members have voiced frustration, bluntly calling out the optics of a long-serving absentee. One council member framed it as a matter of basic commitment: members travel and convene for just two meetings a year, yet a senator with an office nearby has reportedly skipped them all. That lack of attendance has prompted a group of council members to push for a replacement, arguing that the council needs active participants at a moment when Holocaust education and antisemitism are front-and-center concerns. Those pushing for change emphasize that appointments should be filled by people willing to do the work.
“There are two large meetings every year where people fly in from all over the country for it. But Bernie Sanders couldn’t be bothered to walk across the road in DC,” said fellow board member Robert Garson, president of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
The push to remove an inattentive appointee has taken on bipartisan tones, with several council members reportedly sending a letter to Senate leadership to request a replacement. The complaint centers on prolonged nonparticipation at a time of rising antisemitism and renewed scrutiny of Holocaust education. Council critics argue that regular attendance is essential to fulfilling the council’s responsibilities and that prolonged absence undermines the institution’s credibility. At a minimum, critics say, the seat should be occupied by someone prepared to engage.
Context matters here: the country has seen a notable uptick in antisemitic incidents, violent protests on university campuses, and other threats since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Those developments have increased public expectations that institutions and their overseers will be actively engaged in defending remembrance and combating antisemitism. For many observers, a board member’s absence during such a fraught moment looks less like a minor oversight and more like a failure of duty. That perception has fueled calls for someone who will attend and participate.
Outside commentators have also weighed in, sometimes with sharp language linking absentee public figures to a broader pattern of political theater. Critics liken a nonparticipating board member to other high-profile examples of public-appointee absenteeism, arguing that appointments should come with accountability. The issue has become less about ideology and more about whether appointed officials will actually show up to do the job they were given. For those who manage the museum and for the public that supports its mission, active oversight matters.
According to the council’s organizational structure, it includes 68 members: 55 appointed by the president, five appointed by the Senate and House, and three ex officio members from federal departments. The Senate-appointed seat carries the authority of the chamber and the expectation that the appointee will represent the Senate’s interest in the museum’s governance. When an appointed senator is absent repeatedly, other members must shoulder the burden of governance and oversight. That imbalance is precisely what proponents of replacement are trying to correct.
Practical details underscore the argument for active participation: the museum is close enough to the Capitol that attending a meeting is a manageable commitment for a nearby senator. Opponents of the absentee arrangement stress that the council’s work is not ceremonial and that meaningful attendance supports education, preservation, and public trust. The debate unfolding among council members and observers is about whether the seat should remain with an absent appointee or be filled by someone ready to take part in the council’s work. For those who care about Holocaust remembrance and education, engagement is nonnegotiable.
Add comment