Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Puerto Rico votes for statehood but Congress looks unlikely to agree

Flags of Unites States and Puerto Rico
Christian Thiel/EyeEm/Getty Images

A narrow majority of Puerto Ricans have voted once again to seek statehood, but their wish is hardly guaranteed to come true in the foreseeable future.

It will be up to Congress and the president to follow through and negotiate the terms of a switch for the island, which has essentially become the world's oldest colony during a dozen decades as a second-class territory of the United States. Proponents say changing that would erase a big blemish on the global reputation of American democracy.

Because the Senate looks increasingly likely to remain under Republcian control, though, prospects for a statehood bill next year look very dim no matter who is president. President Trump is no fan of the idea, believing it would mean more Democrats in Congress. And former Vice President Joe Biden would lack sufficient Democratic support on Capitol Hill to push through statehood for either Puerto Rico or much bluer Washington, D.C.


Tuesday's referendum secured the "yes" votes of 52 percent in nearly complete returns, a victory margin of about 50,000 votes. The island has voted for statehood twice before in the past decade, but neither plebiscite prompted congressional action.

Statehood supporters came to believe something would be different this time, on the assumption of a lopsided Biden win and a decisive Democratic sweep of Congress — neither of which materialized.

Legislation would be required to end the commonwealth arrangement of the past 70 years: Puerto Ricans are American citizens who are mainly exempt from federal income taxes, although they must pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. The island has significant autonomy, but in return it gets much less federal aid than the states and has no electoral votes or voting members of Congress.

With a population of 3.2 million, Puerto Rico would rank 31st in population among states, and like half a dozen others would elect four House members and a pair of senators. At least at the outset, its complex political alignments would mean it looks relatively purple. But at a minimum it could be counted on to send more non-white lawmakers to Washington.


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