Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Partisanship outweighs even the most basic Washington traditions

Centrist House Democrats on Wednesday spurned invitations to the White House for a second consecutive day, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for delaying the State of the Union speech until the government is reopened.

The new House majority's twinned moves to create symbolic distance from President Donald Trump also reinforce this plain reality: The government is so riven by partisan antagonism that basic Washington behavioral norms are getting yet another downgrade.


Longstanding etiquette dictates that members of Congress decline an invitation to meet with the president – especially if any sense that deliberating policy differences is in the offing – only if gravely ill or away from Washington. And, without fail for more than a century, presidents have been welcomed at the Capitol to give an annual address.

And yet both veneers of at-least-ceremonial bipartisanship are getting new cracks. While seven Democratic members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus joined moderate Republicans at the West Wing on Wednesday, at least that many Democrats in the group stayed away. The day before, a handful of Democratic lawmakers from the moderate Blue Dog Coalition did not show up for their scheduled lunch with the president.

As the Problem Solvers prepared to meet Trump in the Situation Room, top House Democrats came close to outright rescinding their invitation to deliver his State of the Union in the House chamber Jan. 29. Pelosi, who as speaker is responsible for arranging such joint sessions of Congress, sent Trump a letter lamenting how security forces have been stretched thin by the partial government shutdown, now in its record 26 th day, and asked him to send his message in writing (the practice of the 19 th century) or delay the speech until after the impasse is resolved. But Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the president should read the message as "the State of the Union is off" because "we're not going to have business as usual as long as the government is shut down."

Steering Trump away from taking a podium that looms over lawmakers, of course, also prevents him from using primetime television to admonish those who would not include $5.7 billion for hundreds of miles of border wall in the legislation to revive funding for a quarter of the government.

The House Democrats who agreed to meet with Trump issued a statement beforehand signaling they did not want to be used as presidential props for a photo op. "The possibility exists to work together and find common ground to tackle some of our country's type of problems and fix them," they said. "But that conversation can only begin in earnest once the government is reopened. We accepted the White House invitation to meet today to convey that message."

Three of the group were freshmen from Trump-friendly districts who voted against returning Pelosi to the speakership: Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and New Yorkers Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose. The others were Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Thomas Suozzi of New York, Vincente Gonzalez of Texas and Dean Phillips of Minnesota.

The Blue Dog Democrats known to have turned down the president's invitation Tuesday were Spanberger, Luis Correa of California and Floridians Stephanie Murphy and Charlie Crist.


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