Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Warning of revived Russian meddling gives fresh rationale for election security bills

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he Republican colleagues would "rather let Putin win than stand up to President Trump."

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The fresh warnings from intelligence officials that Russia is again intruding in the presidential race have given congressional Democrats an opening to revive their uphill push for election security legislation.

Several proposals for bolstering American democracy's protections against interference by foreign adversaries have passed the House but are stymied in the Senate, where GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell maintains they're unnecessary and designed by Democrats to get under President Trump's skin.

After news broke Thursday night about the warning delivered to lawmakers by the intelligence community's top election security official — who told them Russia is already at work meddling with the election in hopes of helping Trump win again — Minority Leader Chuck Schumer excoriated the GOP in particularly harsh terms.


"Republicans keep blocking election security bills in the Senate, and now we know why: They'd rather let Putin win than stand up to President Trump," he said on Twitter.

The unambiguously identified targeting of the presidential race by Vladimir Putin's government four years ago resulted in few identifiable hacks of voting systems, but it also included a sweeping online disinformation effort and has generated waves of uncertainty about the reliability of American elections. The new intelligence findings will only amplify that.

But it remains highly uncertain whether those reports will prompt any loosening of the Senate standoff when lawmakers return next week.

The measure taking clearest aim at Russia, dubbed the Deter Act, would impose sanctions on Russian finance, defense and energy businesses after a clear finding by U.S. intelligence that the Kremlin was interfering in the election. The measure has been sponsored by five Democrats but also six Republicans, including three of the party's most vulnerable incumbents this fall: Susan Collins of Maine and both of the senators Trump campaigned for this week: Corey Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona.

Four times in the past six months, the Democrats have made a choreographed show of taking the Senate floor to propose immediate passage of election security bills they view as less contentious than the Deter Act — knowing full well their efforts could (and would) be blocked by the GOP without any roll call votes.

The most recent effort came two weeks ago, when three measures that have passed the House in various forms were blocked. One would require presidential campaigns to call the FBI if they are approached by a foreign power offering assistance. Another would require candidates to report any efforts by a foreigner to make a campaign contribution. The last would authorize more federal money for election security and ban the use of voting machines connected to the internet or made overseas.


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