Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Infrastructure bill takes rare bipartisan step forward, but still faces loud opposition

Senators talk infrastructure

Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema talks about the bipartisan infrastructure package alongside (from left) GOP Sens. Kevin Cramer, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rob Portman.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Senate Democrats and Republicans took a significant step this week to advance a bipartisan infrastructure package. However, the deal is far from done.

The Senate's 67-32 vote Wednesday cleared the first procedural hurdle and put lawmakers on track to begin debate on the $1 trillion proposal soon. This development was a big win for congressional bipartisanship at a time when cooperation between the two parties is rare.

But despite being negotiated by a bipartisan group of 22 senators, the infrastructure deal still received harsh criticism from both the right and the left. And some lawmakers were also hesitant to support the deal because the legislation has yet to be written.


Sen. John Cornyn of Texas was one of the Republicans concerned with the lack of drafted legislation. "I'm encouraged that our colleagues have gotten us this far, but the bill's not ready, and we need to see the text and be given adequate time to read it," he said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

Because the bill has yet to be drafted, the exact investments and cost off-sets are not set in stone. Those details are likely to determine how many Republicans ultimately support the package, promising a rocky path forward as debate on the legislation begins.

While former President Donald Trump has already attempted to throw a wrench into negotiations by urging GOP lawmakers not to support the deal, lawmakers on the left aren't fully on board either.

Along with the infrastructure bill, Democrats are pushing a second $3.5 trillion package that includes other priorities for the Biden administration, such as expanding Medicare, support for families and children, and combating climate change. Democrats have said they want to move both packages in tandem.

However, on Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, one of the lead architects of the infrastructure deal, said she would not support the $3.5 trillion price tag for the second package. Democrats plan to use the reconciliation process for the second bill because such a maneuver cannot be blocked by a filibuster — but would likely require every Democrat to vote for it.

In response, progressive lawmakers pushed back, saying they would not support an infrastructure deal without the reconciliation package.

"The votes of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members are not guaranteed on any bipartisan package until we examine the details, and until the reconciliation bill is agreed to and passed with our priorities sufficiently funded," the caucus chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, wrote in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York more pointedly criticized Sinema for her stance.

While bipartisan agreement on infrastructure has proved difficult to achieve in Congress, recent polls have repeatedly shown a majority of Americans support such an investment in the country's roads, bridges, railways and broadband.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less