Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election security demands a White House coordinator, report says

White House
P_Wei/Getty Images

Installing someone at the White House to oversee election security is critical for unifying the government's efforts to combat threats to future elections, a study released Tuesday contends.

The report by The New Center, a nonpartisan think tank, offered five recommendations for improving election security. Topping the list was reappointing someone to serve as White House cybersecurity coordinator. The position on the National Security Council was eliminated in 2018 when John Bolton was national security advisor and sought to "streamline" the council. Lawmakers from both parties questioned the move.

Previously, the coordinator served to unify cybersecurity activities across various federal agencies, a vital role for ensuring an effective response to cyber threats, the report argues.


"With the government's top position on cybersecurity eliminated, and agencies having disparate roles and responsibilities in managing election security and assistance, the federal government lacks an overarching inter-agency or executive mechanism that sets clear standards and strategies for addressing election security concerns," it concluded.

The report also suggests the creation of an "election security coordinating committee" in the West Wing to be chaired by the new cybersecurity coordinator.

The New Center also identified four other strategies for strengthening and instilling trust of election security:

  • Changing federal law to provide states with additional grant opportunities to fund continuously updated election infrastructure.
  • Requiring one new and politically independent commissioner to serve on the Federal Election Commission, and another on the Election Assistance Commission, to minimize the current status quo of partisan gridlock.
  • Establishing a "transparent framework" for greater insight into what personal information is being shared by technology companies with federal agencies.
  • Creating new state and local grants that would allow low-income Americans to obtain cost-free voter identification documents in states that require such IDs to cast ballots.

Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less