Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Open For Business: The U.S. Government

The funding dispute has been resolved at the last minute, successfully preventing a government shutdown during the holiday season.

Open For Business: The U.S. Government
photo of Capital Hill, Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, DC — In response to the impending government shutdown deadline, the Senate swiftly passed a bipartisan plan early Saturday. This plan is designed to fund federal operations and provide disaster aid temporarily.

“Tonight, the Senate delivers more good news for America. There will be no government shutdown right before Christmas,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the Senate floor ahead of final passage.


The House approved the new bill from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA.) by a significant margin, with a vote of 366-34. The Senate also passed the bill, with a vote of 85-11, just after the midnight deadline.

The streamlined 118-page package will fund the government at existing levels until March 14 and includes an additional $100 billion in disaster aid and $10 billion in agricultural assistance for farmers.

Notably, the bill does not include President-elect Donald Trump's request to raise the debt ceiling, which GOP leaders indicated will be discussed next year as part of their tax and border proposals.

Trump derailed bipartisan congressional budget negotiations by dismissing the original proposal, claiming it favored Democrats and was laden with excessive spending. This reaction followed social media posts from billionaire Elon Musk.

Musk urged his followers to "Stop the steal of your tax dollars!" on his platform X, suggesting potential primary challenges for those who supported the budget deal. Trump later echoed this sentiment in his own social media post.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said it looked like Musk, who is heading up the new Department of Government Efficiency, was calling the shots for Trump and Republicans.

“Who is in charge?” she asked during the debate.

Lawmakers expressed relief after the bill's passage. Still, the narrow escape from a potential shutdown raised concerns among some Republicans about the challenges that may arise next year, particularly with Republicans holding an even slimmer majority in the House and Trump back in office.

President Joe Biden, who maintained a lower public profile during the tumultuous week, anticipated signing the measure into law on Saturday.

Some critics argue that Trump does not share the same apprehension about government shutdowns as lawmakers do, pointing to his role in initiating the longest government shutdown in history during his first term.

A government shutdown occurs when the necessary funding legislation to finance the federal government is not approved before the start of the next fiscal year. During a shutdown, the federal government reduces agency activities and services, halts non-essential operations, furloughs non-essential employees, and retains only essential staff in departments responsible for safeguarding human life or property.

The most significant government shutdowns include:

File:President Barack Obama.jpg - Wikipediaen.m.wikipedia.org

The 16-day shutdown in 2013 during the Barack Obama administration resulted from a disagreement over implementing the Affordable Care Act.

File:Bill Clinton.jpg - Wikipedia en.m.wikipedia.org

The 21-day shutdown of 1995–1996, during President Bill Clinton’s administration, over opposition to major spending cuts.

File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg - Wikipediaen.m.wikipedia.org

The longest shutdown, lasting 35 days from 2018 to 2019, occurred during the Donald Trump administration and was triggered by a dispute regarding the expansion of barriers along the U.S.–Mexico border.


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