Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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