Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Abrams boosts voting rights cause in response to Trump

It took until the end of a long and winding rhetorical night, but some Americans did eventually hear a robust call for a federal expansion of voting rights during the primetime broadcast of the State of the Union.

The shout-out did not come from President Trump, who proposed nothing in his address Tuesday night that might fall under the category of "draining the swamp," but from Stacey Abrams, the loser of last year's race for Georgia governor who was tapped to deliver the official Democratic response.


After sketching the party's commitments to improving education and wages, combating gun violence, lowering health care costs, making immigration laws more inclusive, and confronting climate change, she declared that "none of these ambitions are possible without the bedrock guarantee of our right to vote."

She urged the country to "reject the cynicism that says allowing every eligible vote to be cast and counted is a power grab. Americans understand that these are the values our brave men and women in uniform and our veterans risk their lives to defend. The foundation of our moral leadership around the globe is free and fair elections, where voters pick their leaders – not where politicians pick their voters."

Her "power grab" line referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has adopted that term to characterize the election overhaul and voter registration expansion provisions in HR 1, the sweeping political process overhaul legislation pushed by House Democrats.

"Let's be clear: Voter suppression is real," Abrams said near the finish of her 10 minutes of remarks, by which point millions who had watched Trump had turned off their TVs. "From making it harder to register and stay on the rolls to moving and closing polling places to rejecting lawful ballots, we can no longer ignore these threats to democracy."

Her narrow loss in November to Georgia's top elections official, Republican Brian Kemp, amid Democratic charges of ballot malfeasance and voter suppression, has prompted her to start Fair Fight, a group advocating for expanded voting rights. She is also being recruited by D.C Democratic leaders to challenge GOP Sen. David Perdue next year, hoping her candidacy would energize fellow African-Americans and make Georgia competitive in the presidential race.


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