Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

House to Begin Work on HR 1, but Timetable Unknown

The Democrats' sweeping overhaul of elections and ethics law will begin moving through the House by the end of the month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised.

But the committee sequencing, floor timetable and debate terms for the bill all remain closely held if not undetermined. The vagueness is an indication of how the continued threat of a partial government shutdown is complicating the new House majority's desire to showcase the legislation as the top priority for its first months back in power.


"During this Black History Month, I am pleased we will be advancing H.R. 1," Pelosi said in a letter to her rank and file Monday night – noting that a central section of the measure, championed by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, is designed to bolster voting rights by setting federal standards for voter registration procedures, improving access to the polls and restoring the franchise nationwide for convicted felons.

But Pelosi offered no additional details. And, to date, there has been one hearing on the bill, in the Judiciary Committee, with another one scheduled later this week in the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Eight other panels claim some jurisdiction over aspects of the measure, which also would revamp executive branch ethics rules, boost campaign finance disclosures, make Election Day a federal holiday and turn all congressional redistricting over to non-partisan players. Some of them will want to have hearings, as well, and then in theory each would have the authority to debate and amend parts of the package in a committee drafting session, or markup.

If those customary procedures are applied – and the new Democratic leadership has promised a restoration of such "regular order" – it's tough to imagine the measure being readied for a debate by the full House before March. It is virtually guaranteed to pass intact at that point (227 Democrats are cosponsors) before facing a dead-on-arrival promise in the Republican Senate.


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