Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election assistance agency says it’s way short of manpower and money

The federal agency charged with helping states secure their election systems has a problem usually reserved for mom-and-pop stores and start-ups.

The four Election Assistance Commission members told Congress on Wednesday that their office is stifled by a shoe-string budget and has so few employees in some departments that a simple office flu could cripple operations.

"We have a number of areas where if someone is out of the office ... things grind to a halt," Commissioner Ben Hovland told the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. "And that's unacceptable."


For the EAC, created in 2002 to solve the raft of balloting problems exposed in the nearly tied Bush v. Gore presidential contest, the stakes couldn't be higher: With the first 2020 presidential primary seven months away, states and local governments are looking to the EAC for help certifying voting equipment, countering cyberthreats and dispersing grants to run flaw-free elections.

"There is no shortage of ambition at the EAC when it comes to supporting this work," all four commissioners said in a statement to the committee, "but there is a stark shortage of funds for such activities."

One bright spot for the EAC is that all four seats on the board are filled for the first time in almost a decade, and the group is speaking with one cross-partisan voice. But the agency's budget has been cut by more than half during this decade and the number of employees is down to 22 from nearly 50. The current $8 million appropriation, Hovland said, is actually less than what's allocated to fix potholes by Kansas City, Mo.

"That's unbelievable," independent Angus King of Maine responded. "I mean, that's like cutting the budget of the fire department in the middle of a five-alarm fire. We've never had such a serious attack on our electoral system as we've had in the last three years — and your budget is 50 percent of what it was nine years ago?"

Last year, Congress allocated $380 million in grant funding to help states improve their election systems and infrastructure, but the money has gone only so far, state election officials have told Congress.

It's still up in the air how much, if any, additional money will get appropriated for such purposes in time for the presidential contest. But Chairman Roy Blunt of Missouri, who's also No. 3 in the GOP majority's leadership, reiterated the Senate is unlikely to consider any election security policy legislation this year.

"At this point, I don't see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we mark them up," he said.

Asked why by Minority Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois, Blunt in part blamed the decision by the new House Democratic majority to push through a package this winter that combined highly polarizing campaign finance and ethics provisions with election security proposals that enjoy bipartisan support.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "is of the view that this debate reaches no conclusion," Blunt said. "And frankly, I think the extreme nature of HR 1 from the House makes it even less likely we are going to have that debate."


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