Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

An unlikely pair ready to put a wedge in the revolving door. But could it work?

An unlikely pair ready to put a wedge in the revolving door. But could it work?

Courtesy offices of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ted Cruz

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ted Cruz have agreed to set aside their partisan differences on at least one issue: the revolving door.

A pair of polarizing firebrands from opposite ends of the political spectrum have promised to work together to solve a perennial hot-button annoyance of clean government advocates.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agreed last week to collaborate on a bill to shut down the revolving door between Congress and K Street.

But it's unclear the extra attention drawn to the issue from such an odd political couple will jumpstart a legislative campaign that has always stalled in the past. And it's just as unclear a lifetime ban on former members lobbying on Capitol Hill, which the two proposed, could actually work as intended.

Among those who left Congress this year and taken jobs outside of politics, almost 60 percent are already lobbying or involved in work that influences federal policy, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen.


In response, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."

Cruz then tweeted his agreement, reiterating his previous call for a lifelong ban – and acknowledging a rare moment of harmony with a lawmaker he's excoriated several times on social media for her liberal positions, most recently in favor of doubling the minimum wage.



"If we can agree on a bill with no partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills, etc - just a straight, clean ban on members of Congress becoming paid lobbyists - then I'll co-lead the bill with you," Ocasio-Cortez replied. "You're on," came his reply.

A study three years ago by a trio of political scientists found that since the 1970s the number of senators who lobby has gone up by 55 percent and the roster of former House member lobbyists by 40 percent.

That's even though former senators are banned from directly lobbying Congress for two years and former House members for one year. But they are permitted to immediately lobby the executive branch, including administration officials who were once their lawmaking peers. And the Capitol Hill cooling-off period does not say anything about ex-members acting as advisers, consultants or even partners in lobby shops – so long as they don't have direct contact with their onetime colleagues.

It is that significant loophole that would seem to be immune from the sort of legislation Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez are talking about.

Republicans Mike Braun of Indiana and Rick Scott of Florida have proposed Senate legislation to ban ex-lawmakers from lobbying. Republican Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana of a companion bill in the House. Neither bill has any co-sponsors. Neither does a Senate bill by Democrat Jon Tester of Montana that would create a five-year limit on revolving door spinning. That is what Donald Trump proposed as part of his "drain the swamp" agenda in the 2016 campaign, but he has not done anything visible to promote the idea since becoming president.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less