Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats seek exposure (and face aggressive GOP) on HR 1

Majority Democrats are going to slow-walk debate on their comprehensive election and ethics overhaul bill for the better part of three days this week. They hope to highlight their "good government" bona fides for as long as possible before pushing the bill through the House and on to certain death in the Republican Senate.

The only real suspense is whether GOP House members, who also appear dead set against the package, will have any success at weakening some provisions or adding language the Democratic leadership would view as poison pills.


The initial Republican strategy on that front will become clear Tuesday night, when the Rules Committee, which determines the ground rules for all of the House's legislative debates, determines whether to allow amendments.

The sprawling bill carries the label HR 1 to reflect the Democrats' desire to tout it as a top priority during their return to power, and so party leaders are very likely to do whatever they can to keep it unsullied with GOP alterations during a debate that's likely to stretch from Wednesday into Friday.

To that end, they seem willing to brush past complaints that such thwarting of an open amendment process amounts to trampling on one good-government principle even as they profess their overriding interest in promoting a more functional democracy.

Still, House rules afford Republicans one opportunity to alter the legislation right before the final vote, and they can wait to unveil their proposal until the literal last minute – so that the roll call occurs without time for any intervening pressure campaigns by lobbyists or party leaders.

This maneuver, known as the motion to recommit, has become House Republicans' new parliamentary weapon of choice this winter and they have succeeded twice so far in amending legislation, including a gun control measure last week. When the strategy works, it means the GOP has come up with a proposal that wins over a bloc of at least 20 moderate or politically vulnerable Democrats, those most likely to break from the party line in order to display a moderate streak to constituents who in many cases backed President Trump in 2016.

The catchall nature of the bill makes a brief synopsis difficult. Among other provisions, it would:

  • Expand the rules for disclosing campaign contributions to include so-called dark money groups.
  • Give congressional candidates federal matching funds for donations raised in small denominations.
  • Mandate easier voter registration systems nationwide.
  • Create a national requirement to permit early voting.
  • Set Election Day as a federal holiday.
  • Require states to give House redistricting duties to independent commissions in order to end partisan gerrymandering.
  • Bar members of Congress from serving on for-profit boards.
  • Prevent members from using taxpayer money to settle any sort of employment discrimination claim.
  • Tighten ethics rules to slow the revolving door between executive branch service and K Street advocacy.
  • Compel presidential nominees to turn over a decade's worth of income tax returns.

Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less