Some things work better behind closed doors
By Dace Potas
USA Today
..... Public trust in government is in decline. Just 17% of Americans say they trust Washington to do what's right "most of the time" or "just about always.
.....
One response has been a push for radical transparency. Americans are frustrated, so the instinct is to demand a clearer view of how decisions get made. That has meant a greater willingness to leak internal information and growing calls for cameras inside the Supreme Court. In 2025, Sean tors Dick Durbin, D-Illinois and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced the bipartisan cameras in the Courtroom Act, which would require the court to televise its open proceeding.
..... But the instinct is wrong. Not every institution works better in the open. Private deliberations often makes compromise possible precisely because it removes the pressure to perform for voters.
..... A common misconception is that more transparency is always better. We're a democracy, after all, so giving people more access to how decisions get made sounds like an obvious win.
..... That thinking gets used to justify everything from cameras in courtrooms to leaks of internal deliberations. But in politics, seeing how the sausage gets made can make it harder to make the sausage.
.....
Disagreements is messy, and it's not always easier when everyone is watching. Behind closed doors, people can test ideas, change positions and move toward compromise without worrying about how it will play publicly. The old"smoke-filled rooms" of Congress get a bad rap, but they were often where deals actually got done.
.....
When everything happens in public, that space disappears. In an era of intense polarization voters don't just expect their representatives to represent them. They expect them to fight. that pressures makes compromise look like weakness and it makes compromise far less likely to happen.
..... Congress is a mess. there are plenty of reason for that, but one one of them is all the cameras.
..... Cameras in Congress have real benefits. Supporters argue they let the public see how the system works and build trust in the institution. there's some truth to that.
..... But cameras also come with a cost: Everything in the House and Senate is performed in front of an audience. that creates an environment where finding middle ground is harder, especially when lawmakers know they're begin watched. Instead of legislating, members chase sound bites and viral clips.
..... The Supreme Court, by contrast, remains far more functional, in part because it operates with less transparency. The justices deliberate behind closed doors, where they can test arguments and press one another without worrying how it will look to the public.
..... Critics want to strip that privacy away without recognizing that doing so would make the court more like Congress.
.....
Advocates for cameras in the courtroom argue they would make the institution more accessible. But greater visibility would change the behavior of the justices themselves. Americans may not like the kind of nominees who are chosen to perform for the cameras rather than quietly deliberate as the current justices do.
..... More access would not make the court better. it would make it more performance.
..... The same is true of the recent wave of leaks form inside the court. those who disclose internal delineations may believe they are serving the public interest. In practice, they disrupt the court's ability to function and make honest debate among the justices far more difficult.
..... The instinct demand more transparency is understandable. Trust in government is low, and the temptations to pry open every institution. But some institutions work precisely because they don't.
..... Tearing down those walls won't restore trust. It will only us more officials performing instead of deliberating.
..... Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA Today and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.