Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Four inspiring takeaways from a bipartisan gun safety victory

Opinion

President Biden signs gun safety bill

President Biden, joined by first lady Jill Biden, signs the bipartisan gun safety bill on June 25.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Eisen is a senior fellow at Brookings and a former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. Sonnett is a former federal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney and a board member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy. Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to LDAD.

Shootings continue in America, including the slaughter on July 4 in Highland Park, Ill. The legislative breakthrough that happened late last month didn’t stop them.

But it was a breakthrough nonetheless, one created by Americans committed to making a better country, along with bipartisan elected officials pushed into adopting the first gun safety bill in 30 years. Few believed it could occur.


President Biden’s June 25 signature on the legislation followed a 65-33 Senate vote that included 15 Republicans. The House bipartisan vote was 234-193. The NRA could not stop it. Polling shows that Americans support it 3-1.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, was an unexpected lead sponsor. He garnered GOP votes to overcome the filibuster, even though his “A+” NRA rating will surely, as Politico reported, “ take a downgrade.”

Give major credit to the citizen activists who were not daunted by Congress’ repeated failures to do anything, despite hundreds of mass shootings at schools, grocery stores and hospitals.

Those activists seem to have made their mantra Winston Churchill’s words in October 194,1 amidst his country’s against-the-odds survival of relentless Nazi bombing: “Never give in, never, never ... never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

To be sure, the bill accomplishes far less than gun safety advocates sought. Still, the measure reverses the “anything goes,” unrestricted gun culture trend that is, literally, killing us. And perhaps with continuing gun massacres, one Senate success will inspire the next legislation so desperately needed.

As it is, the new law provides billions of dollars for state “crisis intervention programs,” state “red flag” laws, drug courts and veterans courts. The measure authorizes an “enhanced search” window to determine the background of gun-buyers between 18 and 21, and it helps close the “boyfriend loophole” allowing court-adjudicated unmarried domestic abusers to buy guns.

Here are four lessons about fighting for what seems beyond reach:

1. Commitment and persistence matter. Just look at Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in 2018 in Parkland, Fla. He became the face of the gun safety movement. The day after that shooting, a vision of his new life-work emerged: “I walked into my home that night, and ... said: ‘I’m going to break that f...ing gun lobby.’”

Along with others, Guttenberg has lived that vision. He never surrendered to the “overwhelming might of the enemy.” Determined individuals, joined by others, can bring change that most of us doubted would ever happen.

2. Organizing counts. The Senate first announced a “framework” for its package on Sunday, June 12, the day after activist and former Parkland student David Hogg had organized national gun safety demonstrations. It appears that senators did so on a Sunday because of the prior day’s demonstrations.

Hogg applauded the bill as "more than has ever been done in my lifetime on the federal level.”

3. Democracy remains alive. A pivotal moment occurred after many thought mass shootings had become so normalized that we would never cross this red-blue continental divide.

The slaughters in May in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, the Tulsa hospital killings and the non-stop shootings since brought us here. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat and a lead negotiator, explained why: Public pressure was being put on lawmakers “at a rate that I've never seen before.”

4. Bipartisanship is possible. The Senate once got bipartisan deals via negotiations by a “Gang of Five.” Today, more mass is needed to overcome polarization. The gun bill required a Gang of 20.

Other important bipartisan legislation has been adopted on Biden’s watch – a Covid relief bill, an infrastructure bill and other smaller but still significant packages. Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, along with Democratic colleagues, are leading Jan. 6 committee hearings consisting of a stream of Republican witnesses speaking out against a former president of their own party.

Bipartisanship, though difficult, is not dead. The gun bill stands out for advancing our safety. The victory rises from the ashes of tragic, needless deaths and from our compassion for the living.

Even in a polarized Congress and country, citizens can flex their muscle and fight with heart. At least so long as they speak out and follow activist leaders who “never, never give in.”

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less