Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bipartisan forces build to reverse Missouri’s gerrymandering reform

An unlikely legislative coalition of urban African-American Democrats and rural and suburban Republicans is threatening to reverse the will of Missouri's voters, who decided last fall to drain much of the politics out of the state's political mapmaking.

A referendum approved with 62 percent support in November turns the drawing of the state's legislative districts over to an independent commission tasked with ensuring partisan balance and competitiveness. But this week the state House will debate legislation to keep the redistricting process essentially as is, with the decisive power in the hands of the majority party bosses.


The so-called Clean Missouri plan would likely mean the Democrats would reduce the supermajorities the GOP has enjoyed this decade in the state House and Senate, an Associated Press analysis found. But several prominent African-American Democrats say the price would be unacceptably steep: The dismantling of several black-majority districts and the spreading of African-American voters into white-majority districts in order to help them start tilting Democratic.

"There are definitely concerns in the caucus that the way it was written could create long, spaghetti string districts and dilute the black vote at a time when we have historic black representation in the House," Rep. Steve Roberts of St. Louis, a leader of the sharply divided Legislative Black Caucus, told the Kansas City Star.

Republicans assert that protecting African-American districts is among their main motivations for trying to reverse Clean Missouri, and they seem confident they can pass their bill with support of some black lawmakers. Assuming it also gets through the lopsidedly Republican state Senate, GOP Gov. Michael Parson would likely sign it.

None of the other states where voters approved redistricting reform measures last fall – Michigan, Colorado and Utah – are having second thoughts about the move.


Read More

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.
A forest fire glowing with bright orange flames and smoke at night
Photo by Egor Vikhrev on Unsplash

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.

The summer of 2026 once again saw wildfire smoke from the West Coast and Midwest blanketing East Coast skies. Smoke-filled summer skies now seem to be the norm across America, and wildfire season isn’t even close to over.

The public response is also becoming normal. When investigators determine that a person started a wildfire, online chatter usually centers on the idea that humans are the cause and that climate change could not have played a role. That argument confuses the ignition source with the complex conditions that contribute to wildfire. A spark may explain where a wildfire began. It cannot, on its own, explain why flames spread so far and devastate entire communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
If It Quacks Like a Fascist

A Navy veteran argues the Trump administration keeps reaching for fascist symbols, from eagle imagery to a livestreamed execution.

Ira L. Black/Getty Images

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

The Trump administration is evoking neo-fascism on purpose. I want to say that plainly, because when a pattern is this consistent, it would be naive to call it a coincidence. They may deny the intent, but they keep reaching for fascist symbols. If it looks like a fascist and quacks like a fascist, it probably is one.

When a reporter at opening night of Les Misérables asked Trump whether he identified more with Jean Valjean, the protagonist who steals bread to feed the hungry, or Javert, the villain who treats mercy as weakness, Trump called it a tough one. It’s not a tough one, unless you want to be the bad guy. And he might. In their new book, Regime Change, New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan describe a moment when President Trump showed them a list that placed him alongside Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan. By Swan’s account, the president relished the company. Trump is less worried about his approval ratings or the law than about expanding his personal power.

Keep ReadingShow less