Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Progressives press Senate to make quick work of new election aid

Sen. Roy Blunt

Sen. Roy Blunt will convene a hearing in two weeks that might make clear how much more to smooth the election Republicans are willing to spend.

Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images

Progressive groups pressed the Senate on Friday to reconvene "immediately" and approve more aid for states struggling to prepare for a presidential contest in the middle of a pandemic.

A letter from 31 left-leaning organizations to the Republican majority leadership is highly unlikely to alter the calendar, which has senators in recess next week. Instead, it highlights that election funding will be a high-profile, intensely lobbied and potentially partisan issue when Congress does negotiate its next coronavirus recovery package.

Congress allocated $400 million in March to help states conduct elections this year, an amount labeled wholly insufficient not only by voting rights groups but also by state and local election officials from both parties.


Congress is gone from the Capitol until July 20, but its leaders are in the early stages of negotiating what would be the fifth measure designed to prop up the economy and control the Covid-19 pandemic. But top House Democrats and Senate Republicans seem deeply divided over the size and scope of the new package — casting doubt it can get done before another recess now set to start in early August.

The House voted along party lines eight weeks ago to pass a $3 trillion bill that included $3.6 billion in additional election subsidies to accommodate a virtually guaranteed surge in mail-in voting, make in-person voting safer and bolster online voter registration.

The Senate GOP has made no specific counter-offer beyond an opening bid of $1 trillion as the bottom line. And the party's leaders have been vague about how much more it's willing to provide state election administrators, in part because of President Trump's blistering if false claims that easy and expansive absentee voting assures a wave of election fraud.

That could soon change. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the leadership and its top negotiator on election policy as chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, announced Friday he would hold a hearing July 22 to consider how much more funding is necessary.

But the groups who penned the letter say Congress shouldn't wait that long — and that GOP senators have already delayed too much.

"With less than four months until the November election, time is of the essence," the letter says, adding:

"It should be clear to senators of both parties that the cost of ensuring that every eligible voter can safely cast their ballot amid this pandemic is a small price to pay to preserve our democracy — but given your efforts to block this funding over the past two months, it bears repeating that this pandemic continues to threaten the very foundation of our democracy."

The missive was sent to Blunt, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Appropriation Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama. It was originated by Stand Up America and was signed by groups that similarly align with the left — including Move On, Common Cause, Fair Fight Action, Let America Vote, Public Citizen and Voto Latino.

The haggling over election money will take place amid a welter of other deliberations — including the scope of a new round of direct cash payments, how to extend enhanced unemployment benefits and whether the bill should settle the new battle between Trump and many Democrats over how the nation's schools should safely reopen.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less