Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Powers in the balance thanks to wall ‘emergency’

Restoring some equilibrium among the executive, legislative and judicial branches is a central ingredient to reviving democratic normalcy. And the emergency wall declaration is creating one of the most consequential federal balance-of-power battles in modern times.

President Trump is the clear favorite, but his advantage as he pushes to build more border barriers is not prohibitive.

The president's cause could be slowed and eventually derailed by the federal courts, but that tussle might continue well into the election year. More quickly and decisively, he could be rebuffed in a matter of weeks by Congress, but only if the legislative branch acts with a resoundingly bipartisan voice.

And this is a bit less of a longshot than it may appear. A critical mass of congressional Republicans is theoretically prepared to conclude it's in their best interest to fight for either their legislative authority or their views of conservative governance, even if that means deviating from their habits of deference and political loyalty to the president.


The climax of this battle looks clear: It will come whenever the House and Senate vote on whether to override Trump's first veto.

The 1976 law the president invoked last week – establishing the presidential power to address national emergencies with money appropriated for other purposes – says such an emergency declaration can be nullified with a "disapproval resolution" passed by Congress. Exactly when that bill will start moving, and its precise terms, is being deliberated by the Democratic leadership while Congress is in recess this Presidents' Day week. But it's a sure bet the measure will easily move through the House, because all 235 members of the Democratic majority will vote yes, at a minimum. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled that at least four of his fellow Republicans are going to join all 47 Democrats to clear the measure in his chamber.

The drama comes after Trump then uses his veto pen to send the legislation back to the Capitol, at which point negating the emergency declaration would require two-thirds support in both the Senate and the House.

That's not altogether out of the question. Twenty GOP senators, the minimum needed to approve guarantee an override, are already on record opposing Trump's declaration – arguing that it either inappropriately tramples on the congressional power of the purse, or sets a dangerous precedent that a liberal future president could use to advance policies on climate change, gun rights or health care without a Capitol Hill stamp of approval. (Their comments have been collected by The Bulwark, a conservative web site highly critical of Trump, and some of the senators spoke before the emergency declaration was a sure thing.)

Only seven GOP House members have made similar public comments to date. But the magic number of 55 would be in reach if they were joined by almost all 23 Republicans on the Appropriations Committee (which now faces having dozens of its spending decisions of the past year nullified) and all 26 Republicans on the Armed Services Committee (angry that Trump wants to take $3.6 million in military construction funding to finance his border construction). Speaker Nancy Pelosi is also circulating a list of projects, many in GOP-held districts, that might be mothballed under Trump's plan.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less