Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senate Democrats unite behind their version of HR 1

All 47 Democratic senators, including the six running for president, signed on to legislation introduced today that mirrors the campaign finance, election administration and ethics overhaul passed by the House this month.

Their unanimity has no utilitarian effect, because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear he'll never put the bill to a vote and not one of his fellow Republicans (let alone the 13 necessary) has even hinted at breaking ranks to advance the bill over his opposition.

But the Democrats who announced the bill made clear that, at least until the next election, they are more content to make a political point than to make a new law.


"This is the bill I think we should use as our talking points across the country when people are running for president or running for Congress," said Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the only one of the presidential aspirants to attend the news conference unveiling the bill. "This is the whole collection of what we need to do, from taking the dark money out to making it easier to vote."

The measure's principal sponsor, Tom Udall of New Mexico, conceded that his options for advancing his cause were limited before he retires at the end of next year. At best, he said, he might be able to put all senators on record by securing a vote on an amendment that would attach the bill to the annual budget resolution, a purely symbolic move because the budget measure does not have the force of law.

Udall's office described his measure as "a near identical copy" of HR 1, the measure the House passed three weeks ago on a party line vote of 234-193. Among the bill's most prominent features are the re-enfranchisement of felons after their release from prison, the lowering of barriers to voting across the country, the creation of public matching funds for candidates who raised money from others in small donations, a tougher code of ethics for the executive branch and a mandate that all states turn their congressional mapmaking over to nonpartisan commissions.


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