Think you can recognize what congressional districts look like? Take this quiz to see if you can pick out which pieces were drawn on maps by legislatures and which ones are abstract doodles created by our staff.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?
As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.
Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.” America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.
For nearly eight decades, American support for Israel has followed a traditional patronage model. When voters object to how American weapons are used, they can pressure their representatives to condition or withhold that aid–at least, in theory. By pivoting to a procurement model, Section 224 strips away even that theoretical mechanism of political oversight, further eroding the public’s ability to influence foreign policy. Any American angry about foreign military actions would now have to call the Secretary of Defense to protest. I don’t think Pete Hegseth is taking that call.
National security risks are inherent in a pact like this. If a partner nation takes actions that violate international humanitarian law or pursues geopolitical objectives that clash with Washington’s, getting out of that partnership could be incredibly difficult. When Turkey was expelled from the F-35 program, it cost the Pentagon years and half a billion dollars just to restructure the supply chains and replace Turkish suppliers for a single aircraft. Section 224 would intertwine us across multiple critical technological domains simultaneously. What a tangled web we would weave.
Taking a page out of American defense giants’ playbook, Israeli companies could expand or start production in key U.S. congressional districts, creating a powerful political shield. After all, what lawmakers would challenge an international alliance when doing so could lead to associated job loss in their backyards? Any plan that could render the U.S. political system more susceptible to a foreign country’s interests should sound suspect, but it doesn’t help that the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency just raised Israel’s espionage threat level to critical as concerns about Israeli spy agencies eavesdropping on American negotiators have intensified. That being said, it also need not matter that the country in question is Israel. We could be talking about Canada, and it would still be a very bad idea.
The Boy Who Cried Anti-Semitism and allies may try to argue that opposing 224 is a slight against Jews, but the Trump regime has been hiding behind a smokescreen of faux concern for Jewish safety for years. In reality, this proposal could put Jews in greater danger; with antisemitism on the rise, at least in part provoked by the conflict in Gaza, the idea of the federal government deepening its relationship with an international pariah over the opposition of the American people is hardly strategic or thoughtful. Antisemitic assaults reached a record high in the U.S. last year, while a report found that violent antisemitic attacks killed the highest number of Jews around the world in 30 years. Our entanglements with Israel are unpopular globally. At a time when Israel has yet to face accountability for human rights violations against Palestinian and Lebanese people, cozying up to a country that the United Nations has called out for committing genocide is almost certain to trigger negative backlash. Jews are already feeling increasingly unsafe; for Congress to take actions that could fan the flames of division seems inappropriate, irresponsible, and shortsighted.
It shouldn’t matter, but I am Jewish. While deployed to the South China Sea aboard the USS Carl Vinson, I personally wrote a Haggadah and led a Passover Seder because there wasn't a Jewish chaplain on board to do it. I also had my bat mitzvah at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in 2006, at a time when Hezbollah rockets were falling on Haifa. I never used to have to convince Jews I was Jewish enough for them to consider my opinions, nor did I feel the need to rationalize to non-Jews why I’m proud of my heritage. But this issue should have nothing to do with Judaism, and nothing to do with religion at all, and not just because the Establishment Clause in our Constitution forbids it. This is a question of national security, and I do not want the core reasoning to be obscured.
Section 224 can and should be debated strictly on its merits. No foreign government perfectly mirrors America's strategic interests at all times. By forging an intimacy so absolute that a foreign military becomes indispensable to our own technological framework, we sacrifice our autonomy. That should be a dealbreaker. I know conversations involving Israel can get highly charged, but though there is no shortage of moral arguments, the case against Section 224 is strong enough without them.
For what it’s worth, I have read numerous materials in favor of Section 224, and efforts to “refut[e] myths” about it, which would attempt to reject much of what I’ve laid out above. Supporters claim it would help American service members “have the most advanced capabilities to meet evolving threats,” but I would rather we double down on innovation at home than get hitched to another country. Ultimately, I am simply not persuaded that this is a “practical, commonsense effort to improve defense cooperation with one of America's closest security partners.” Not even while fighting the Nazis did America make such an effort to improve defense cooperation with the Allies. Section 224 seems neither practical nor common sense.
As my late mother once warned me, “it’s a lot easier to get married than to get divorced—choose your partner carefully.” Creating such an unprecedented alliance with another country seems reckless. America is young and has a lot more growing up to do. Why are we rushing into such a formal, long-term, and irreversible commitment?
I want peace for Jews worldwide, and I want the same for people of all faiths. As a scholar of global business law and a veteran military officer, I do not see how this would effectively advance that goal nor do I want my country to risk finding itself beholden to any foreign government. Regardless, when choices with such permanent consequences are on the table, the American people deserve a transparent and rigorous public debate. Short of that, Congress must strip Section 224 from the NDAA. As long as calling your reps can still affect our relationships with other countries, do it. It’s not too late for the U.S. to get cold feet. The public still has a voice on this issue. Before we form a union we might regret, speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
People attend a Juneteenth event in Brower Park on June 19, 2026 in the Crown Heights neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.
Juneteenth is not merely a commemoration of June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced to the last enslaved Black Americans that they were free, more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation. What began as local community gatherings to mark the end of slavery has evolved into a national holiday, with traditions including parades, prayer services, family reunions, and reflection on the enduring struggle for freedom. Juneteenth serves as a mirror held up to the nation, compelling us to engage in self-examination. What have we been? Who are we? What might we yet become?
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, we are called to celebrate a quarter-millennium of democracy. Yet, what form of democracy are we being asked to honor? Is it the kind that repeatedly inscribes the word “liberty” only to erase it through violence? Or is it the kind that confronts its own failures and strives toward a justice that has been too long deferred?
The attacks on democratic rule and practices observed today are not unprecedented. Such actions are as old as the Republic itself. Familiar tactics, such as voter suppression at the ballot box and systematic rollbacks of civil and electoral rights, consistently target marginalized groups. For instance, this year, several states enacted laws restricting early voting hours and limiting the use of mail-in ballots—measures that disproportionately burden communities of color and working-class voters. These are not isolated incidents of bigotry or cynicism; rather, they are foundational elements of a society that has never fully reconciled its founding contradictions. Regrettably, this has been a persistent pattern in American history.
We observe state legislatures systematically eroding the hard-won gains of the Civil Rights Movement, witnessing historical patterns of exclusion reemerge in contemporary forms. The ongoing exclusion of Black, Brown, Indigenous, poor, and immigrant voices from public discourse demonstrates that the mechanisms of denial remain active and effective, continually undermining progress. Nevertheless, delayed is NOT denied. This is the enduring lesson of Juneteenth.
This lesson has left a profound impact on those who believe in a freedom they have yet to experience. It is reflected in the persistent conviction that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, but only through collective effort. The narrative of Juneteenth is not one of arrival; rather, it is a historical account of prolonged, agonizing, and unjust waiting. Juneteenth also embodies a community’s faith—a steadfast belief that refused to be constrained by legal limitations. Their story demonstrates that the promise of America has always been contested, that the work of democracy remains ongoing, and that progress has consistently been met with resistance from those intent on denying others.
As the nation prepares to celebrate its 250th year, we must avoid indulging in sentimental narratives about progress. We should not conflate patriotic pageantry with genuine justice. Instead, we ought to confront the discomfort that Juneteenth evokes and critically examine how democracy can be claimed when many individuals continue to struggle for recognition, representation, and freedom.
To genuinely honor the spirit of Juneteenth, we must undertake the following actions:
Juneteenth is not solely a Black American holiday; it is a national historical observance. It provides an opportunity to assess the gap between national promises and realities, and to solemnly celebrate while acknowledging the ongoing pursuit of freedom.
Delayed is NOT denied. However, delay is not without consequence; it is a wound that persists and a debt unpaid. Juneteenth challenges us to undertake the demanding work of democracy, not only for ourselves but also for all who have waited, and continue to wait, for the realization of freedom’s promise.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
For Independence Day 2026, the 250th Anniversary of the birth of our nation, Americans should celebrate this momentous Anniversary by reflecting on a problem concerning the very concept of independence. We should think about how we could resolve the problem by drawing on the same values and strategies as the founding fathers.
Gallup reports that in 2025, 45% of American voters did not identify as either Democrats or Republicans. Instead, they identified as independents. The problem with the concept of independence that warrants reflection is how we can call ourselves a democracy when almost half of our citizens do not identify with the two political parties that have basically run the country since the late 19th century.
The next major stage of American democracy should concern the structure of our democracy, namely, the process of democratic deliberation, rather than the outcomes. In short, it should not be about a leftward, rightward, or centrist turn, or about some transformation that transcends the political spectrum as we know it. Nor should our reflections focus on whether we support President Trump.
Instead, the next major stage of American democracy should concern the process by which laws are made and how the president, any U.S. president, and Congress should work together.
I have argued in The Fulcrum the last three years close to a dozen times -- and had my columns reprinted via Tribune in 40-50 U.S. newspapers -- for a concept of democratic government I call "tripartisanship." In a tripartisanship system, there are three, not two, major political forces on Capitol Hill: the two major parties and an Independent Caucus in the Senate made up of 5-6 U.S. senators who are independents.
Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan argued for this “fulcrum strategy” in The Centrist Manifesto, but he proposed a Centrist Political Party to animate it. I propose a different course of action.
The Independent Caucus plays a peacemaker role on the Hill, but it does more than act as a marriage counselor. The Independent Caucus is designed to insert its beliefs, interests, and values into the deliberative process itself.
Moreover, the senators, by design, would not all be centrists. Rather, they would represent a diverse range of independent perspectives. Yet, as an Independent Caucus, they would have to make sacrifices at times to help the Senate reach 60 votes on major policies.
Tripartisanship derives its energy in part from the concept of independence itself and in part from cooperation with other independents. No one in Washington gets everything they want, not the Democrats in Congress, not the Republicans in Congress, and not the President.
What is distinctive about the coming stage of American democracy -- in 2028, 2032 and beyond -- is that it will not focus on the content of public policies as the New Deal did or the Reagan Revolution did. Rather, it will focus on turning a widely agreed-upon dysfunctional Congress and Washington overall into a functional Congress and Washington overall.
The Tripartisan Turn, if it ever comes to be, will stand out not for the new laws that it promised to pass but for the new process of deliberation that it promised to establish. It will stand out for using the leverage of 5-6 U.S. Senators, who were either elected to office or who converted while in office. It will stand out for creating peace between the two major parties and bringing the substantive concerns of independents to the table.
The Tripartisan Turn can save American democracy by providing representation for 60 million-plus independents in our country and by reshaping, rather than dismantling, the two-party system. We should continue to have two major parties, but we also need an Independent Caucus that contains America in miniature.
The most respectful way to celebrate Independence Day 2026 is to honor the concept of independence by encouraging the country to bring us to the place where we can have an Independent Caucus. Integrating the beliefs and values of independents in our political system would do justice to Independence Day 2026.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.
Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.
Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.
How would our nation’s leaders respond? I predict that elected officials and regulatory agencies would move quickly to build roads, accelerate automotive production, and help people learn to drive, rather than waiting for cars to become 100% risk-free. They’d recognize the nation’s death toll would drop significantly with faster transportation.
This is how American leaders should think about generative AI in medicine.
Most Americans know healthcare is too expensive and difficult to access. Far fewer understand that hundreds of thousands of people die annually from misdiagnoses, poorly controlled chronic disease, and preventable medical errors. Fewer still can imagine how large language models like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini would help prevent those deaths.
Today, diagnostic errors kill or permanently disable nearly 800,000 Americans each year. In addition, chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes remain poorly controlled for millions of Americans, contributing to at least 50% of the nation’s heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failures each year. And nearly 60% of patients with a family doctor say they can’t get an appointment for weeks.
When the first generative AI tools reached the public in November 2022, the technology was deemed remarkable but unreliable, and far from safe in clinical settings. Google’s first medical AI model, Med-PaLM, achieved a mere 67% on the U.S. medical licensing exam later that year. Researchers, clinicians, and regulators quickly urged caution. But by March 2023, Med-PaLM 2 had scored 87%: expert doctor level.
Today’s models are even more impressive. A new Harvard-led study tested OpenAI’s o1 preview model on difficult clinical tasks, including 76 real emergency-room cases at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. At three stages of care (initial triage, first physician contact, and hospital admission), the model matched or exceeded the performance of experienced physicians.
Assuming large language models continue to double in power over the next three years, they will become 8 to 16 times more clinically capable than they are today. And yet, healthcare practitioners and leaders continue to view GenAI’s capabilities as limited to administrative tasks such as billing, coding, documentation, and ambient listening. Used to improve clinical outcomes, AI could help prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
GenAI’s next set of lifesaving tools is already within reach. Existing models are being trained on ever-richer clinical information: real conversations between doctors and patients, millions of medical records, and streams of data from hospital monitors (97% of which goes unanalyzed because there is too much information for humans to process).
Given the toll of lives lost from today’s medical failures, the safest choice for our nation is to move our foot from the brake to the accelerator. Here are three examples where GenAI can help address today’s failures:
1. Chronic disease control
Conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure affect 75% of American adults and produce many of the nation’s deadliest complications, including heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure.
Despite effective medications and evidence-based protocols, these diseases remain inadequately controlled. Two major reasons are medical structure and clinician time.
Across the country, chronic diseases are managed episodically, with office visits lasting 18 minutes on average, scheduled three or four months apart. Instead, patients need frequent monitoring to identify clinical trends and allow clinicians to adjust medication quickly when effective control isn’t happening.
A GenAI application connected to a home blood pressure cuff, glucose monitor, or wearable device could continuously track whether a patient’s condition was improving or worsening. Patients would continue their current plan, while doctors would be notified of problematic trends and able to make timely medication adjustments.
2. 24/7 medical guidance
When people develop symptoms at night or on weekends, they must decide whether to wait until the doctor’s office opens or go to an overcrowded emergency department.
Generative AI tools could help people select the best option by providing personalized guidance on the most likely diagnosis, the appropriate treatment, and whether to seek immediate medical care. Often, the problem resolves without additional medical assistance.
3. Ongoing clinical support
Most misdiagnoses and preventable medical errors happen not because clinicians lack knowledge, but because they lack the time to apply it.
During brief office visits, they are expected to evaluate new problems, manage chronic conditions, address preventive care, and comfort anxious patients. It’s not possible.
Technology companies are already building AI tools to reduce administrative burden. They are useful, but insufficient. GenAI could also provide immediate expertise to individuals with straightforward medical problems, freeing clinicians to spend more time with those patients at greatest risk.
To translate these opportunities into practice, the nation needs a coordinated public-private effort.
The federal government needs to ensure that all Americans, regardless of location or income, have access to the most reliable and robust large language models.
NIH researchers, medical societies, and clinicians will need to develop patient education materials that teach people how to prompt GenAI models and ask effective follow-up questions. They would also work with technology companies to ensure LLMs consistently provide reliable, evidence-based answers.
Finally, the FDA and CDC need to ensure that wearable and bedside monitors connect safely with GenAI applications on patients’ phones and computers.
If the United States wants to save the greatest number of lives, now is the time to expand access to GenAI tools, build safe and reliable technological applications for patients, and teach all Americans how to use GenAI to maximize.
Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
