Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Americans want action on gun control, but the Senate can’t move forward

Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas

A Texas state trooper places flowers for the victims of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, where 21 people were killed, including 19 children.

Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images

Yet another tragic school shooting has prompted renewed calls for changes to the nation’s federal gun laws. But with Senate Republicans able to block nearly any bill from being passed, even a proposal that has overwhelmingly popular support seems virtually assured of going nowhere.

An 18-year-old gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday. According to media reports, the shooter, Salvador Ramos used two guns he purchased legally on his 18th birthday.

The House of Representatives has passed two bills enhancing background check requirements for gun sales, but the Democrats in charge of the Senate have delayed action in hopes of finding a way around Republicans’ parliamentary blockade.


In general, fewer people (but still a majority) have said they want stricter gun control laws in recent years. In 1990, 78 percent told Gallup the laws controlling the sale of firearms should be more strict. The number decreased over time, hitting a low of 44 percent in 2010. But after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the numbers crept back up, peaking at 67 percent in 2018. This year, it was back down to 52 percent.

But when asked about specific proposals, the data can be quite different.

In March 2021, Politico and Morning Consult asked people for their opinions on two bills under consideration in Congress.

One would require background checks for all gun purchases. An overwhelming 84 percent said they support the proposal, including 77 percent of Republicans. That bill passed the House 227-203, with eight Republicans voting in favor and one Democrat in opposition.

The bill moved to the Senate 14 months ago, but it was never considered. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put it on the legislative calendar Tuesday, indicating it could get a vote at some point in the near future.

The same day the House passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, the chamber also passed a second background checks bill. Currently, a gun dealer may complete a transaction if the FBI hasn’t concluded the buyer’s background check within three days. This bill would make the seller wait 10 days.

Known as the “Charleston loophole,” the current policy allowed a white gunman to purchase a weapon and kill nine people at a historically Black church in South Carolina in 2015.

Americans of all political stripes are less supportive of that proposal, with just 56 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and 35 percent of Republicans backing it. Nevertheless, Schumer is hoping for a vote on that bill as well.

But Schumer knows the Senate will not pass either bill as they currently stand, so rather than holding an “accountability” vote that would fail but might create material for the campaign season, Schumer says he wants to try to allow time for compromise.

“My Republican colleagues can work with us now. I know this is a slim prospect, very slim, all too slim — we’ve been burned so many times before — but this is so important,” he said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

Advocates for new gun laws are not happy.

While passage of legislation only requires a bare majority, chamber rules allow individual senators to prevent a vote from even happening by engaging in (or merely threatening to engage in) a filibuster. Stopping or preventing a filibuster requires 60 votes, an insurmountable barrier in an evenly divided Senate.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed with a simple majority vote. Increasingly, liberals have been demanding Democrats change the rules to push through legislation they favor. Last year, they wanted to change or eliminate the filibuster to enact voting rights legislation. This year, abortion and gun control have been the catalysts for renewed calls.

However, two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have repeatedly said they will oppose any changes to the rule.

As long as the filibuster remains intact, the minority will be able to control the legislative process.

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less