Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Food Was Terrible and Such Small Portions

The Food Was Terrible and Such Small Portions
white concrete dome building under blue sky during daytime

You may recognize the title of this post as the punchline to a joke that originated in the 1920s. It’s an apt description of how the House Republicans are currently operating. They complain loudly and publicly about bills and … then they vote for them anyway.

But a few bills came to the floor and passed with little controversy, including one which will become law:


Now back to the House Republicans’ entirely self-created problems:

This week’s poorly received (yet passed!) bills were about another temporary extension of FISA Section 102, finally funding all of the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE/CBP and the long delayed update of the Farm Bill.

The root of the House GOP’s angst are

  • a very small majority
  • several factions with irreconcilable demands
  • a refusal to accept Democratic votes to get bills passed (sometimes Democrats do vote with Republicans, but not as a necessary condition of passage)

The result though is consistent: for all the complaints, the bills end up getting passed in the House.

Outcome

Posting Schedule Note: Both chambers of Congress are now out until May 11, so the regular previews/recaps won’t appear, but you’ll hear from us on other issues!

Amy West is the research & communications manager with GovTrack.

The Food Was Terrible and Such Small Portions was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep Reading Show less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep Reading Show less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep Reading Show less