Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema leaves Democratic Party, poised to become first independent woman senator

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona said she’s leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent, which would make her the first independent woman senator in history.

“Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party,” Sinema wrote in an op-ed published in the Arizona Republic on Friday morning. “ Becoming an independent won’t change my work in the Senate; my service to Arizona remains the same.”

In total, 77 U.S. senators have been independent or registered with a third party. Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Angus King of Maine are also registered independents. Both caucus with the Democratic Party, allowing them to serve on committees. Sinema currently serves on three Senate committees and chairs two subcommittees.

Sinema did not explicitly say in her op-ed or an accompanying video if she planned to still caucus with the Democratic Party. But she emphasized that she would continue to support reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights and efforts to lower health care costs.


“Arizonans who share my unwavering view that a woman’s health care decision should be between her, her doctor and her family should know that will always remain my position, as will my belief that LGBTQ Americans should not be denied any opportunity because of who they are or who they love,” she wrote. Sinema is the first out bisexual person elected to the US Senate.

She added that “for Arizonans who’ve supported my work to make health care more affordable and accessible, they should know I will continue that work.”

Sinema, elected in 2018, has wielded a significant amount of influence in a Senate that has been divided evenly between 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats for the first two years of President Joe Biden’s presidency. Democrats gained a one-seat Senate majority in the 2022 midterms. It’s unclear if or how Sinema’s decision will change that majority and the power it gives Democrats in the body.

Sinema played a key role in negotiating a major bipartisan infrastructure bill in 2021 a nd a bipartisan gun safety package this year.

But she’s also rankled progressives and angered the party’s left flank with some of her more moderate policy positions. Her support for the Senate’s filibuster rules and opposition to certain tax hikes sparked anger and open discussion from progressives about challenging her from the left in the Democratic primary when she’s up for reelection in 2024.

“I promised I would never bend to party pressure, and I would stay focused on solving problems and getting things done for everyday Arizonans,” Sinema wrote in her op-ed. “My approach is rare in Washington and has upset partisans in both parties. It is also an approach that has delivered lasting results for Arizona.”


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less