Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Conservatives call for more federal funding for election security

Election security

A Beloit, Wis., election worker reviews ballot information on Election Day 2020.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Leaders of conservative think tanks and advocacy organizations are urging Congress to provide “robust and consistent” funding to state and local governments to bolster election security.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders, the signatories cite recent cyberattacks that threatened national security and the economy, saying those incursions demonstrate the need to protect election infrastructure.


“Leading computer science experts agree that hacking threats against US voting systems are growing and that increasingly out-of-date elections infrastructure make for relatively easy targets,” reads the letter, which was signed by leaders of Americans for Tax Reform, R Street Institute and FreedomWorks, among others.

The letter details security risks to be addressed, including equipment and databases that can be easily hacked; identifies Russia, Iran, China and North Korea as potential attackers; and cites efforts by Republicans and Democrats to address the risks.

"In light of these recent cyberattacks, we urge you to support robust and consistent assistance to state and local governments to ensure the integrity of our nation’s election infrastructure," they wrote.

The letter argues that the parties have an opportunity to build on common ground around shared security goals.

“There is growing bipartisan consensus that supports commonsense solutions to this challenge, including voter-verified paper ballots and audits,” they wrote. “There is also strong support for better federal oversight of voting machine vendors and for strictly keeping voting and tabulation infrastructure off of the Internet.”

In 2020, Congress authorized the distribution of $425 million to the states to improve election security measures. That followed on the heels of the $380 million in grants approved in 2018.

This year, Democrats have packed additional election security provisions into the For the People Act, a comprehensive measure negotiated with West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat who had opposed earlier electoral reform legislation. But both measures, along with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, have been blocked by Senate Republicans this year.

“Across the board, our federal government is far too expansive and expensive, but there are times where it has a role to play. Protecting our elections against foreign threats and providing funding for election security are two such cases,” said Matthew Gerner, a fellow in the governance program at R Street and a signatory on the letter.

“While there are some admirable provisions of the so-called For the People Act, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, they make the problem of an expansive and expensive federal government even worse,” he said. “The For the People Act and the Freedom to Vote Act infringe on free speech rights, and all three bills shift control over elections from state and local governments to Washington, DC. None of them are the right path for federal election legislation.”

The National Election Defense Coalition, which works with groups on the left and the right to secure elections, helped organize the letter.

“Today, the issue of federal funding and prudent standards for paper ballots and audits are national priorities,” said NEDC President Ben Ptashnik. “With clear liberal, centrist and conservative support, Republican leaders in Congress and conservative Democratic Senators like [Joe] Manchin, should do whatever it takes to overcome obstructionism and rebuild confidence in American democracy.”


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