Latest in Politics
Senate Democrats block bill limiting lawmaker stock trading
Republicans were seven votes short of advancing the Stop Insider Trading Act.
read moreFormer special counsel Jack Smith upholds his prosecutions against President Donald Trump
WASHINGTON – Former special counsel Jack Smith defended allegations that investigators improperly obtained communications and phone records involving members of Congress on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
During the contentious four-hour hearing, Republican senators pressed Smith over alleged political bias and potential constitutional violations, accusing his team of improperly targeting members of Congress.
Democrats defended Smith’s actions and directed the attention to president Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events leading up to Jan. 6 during the Capitol insurrection.
Smith, who led the Justice Department’s investigations into the president’s alleged misconduct, was the sole witness at the hearing.
“I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others,” Smith said. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president today, based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”
Smith was appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to oversee two federal investigations involving President Trump during his first term. Smith brought criminal charges against Trump in both cases.
Republicans demanded Smith himself to be prosecuted, calling him a partisan political operative.
“They ignored the Constitution,” Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said in his opening remarks. “This wasn’t a normal prosecution.”
Republican lawmakers alleged that Smith’s team obtained records involving members of Congress without adequately protecting potentially privileged information. A House Judiciary Committee report released last week alleges that investigators recognized potential Speech or Debate Clause protections but proceeded with subpoenas despite those concerns.
Smith said his office took its obligations under the Speech or Debate Clause seriously, calling it “an important part of separation of powers.”
He said attorneys familiar with the clause consulted the Justice Department’s public integrity section, which oversees the investigation and prosecution of federal actions.
The committee focused on text messages involving 44 members of Congress that investigators obtained during the Trump investigation. Republican lawmakers have questioned whether investigators properly protected congressional communications and whether a Justice Department “Filter Team” was bypassed before investigators reviewed the messages.
The former counsel acknowledged that his office obtained toll records, and emphasized that those were metadata about calls, not the contents of conversations, but when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, pressed Smith on the geolocation data, Smith said the details have not been reviewed.
“The purpose was to gather corroborating evidence about calls to members of Congress seeking to get them to delay the Electoral College certification proceedings,” which Smith said “added to the powerful evidence we had of Donald Trump’s guilt.”
Smith denied that former President Joe Biden, former Attorney General Merrick Garland or former FBI official Timothy Thibault influenced his decisions. Thibault was frequently mentioned during the hearing as the FBI official who was involved in the documentation and process leading to the opening of the April 2022 investigation into Trump’s alleged fraudulent electors scheme, also known as Arctic Frost, and for violating the Hatch Act.
Senator Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., and other Republicans said Smith had “weaponized the Department of Justice against political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country.”
Smith pushed back, arguing that the investigation could not fairly be characterized as partisan because some of its most important witnesses were Republicans, including former vice president Mike Pence and former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers.
The hearing also produced a notable clash over a basketball game. Schmitt suggested Smith had traveled to Atlanta to meet with a prosecutor who pursued Trump. Smith said Schmitt was referring to the wrong game, explaining that he had attended a University of Maryland game against Iowa to watch Caitlin Clark, not an Atlanta Hawks game.
Democratic senators, meanwhile, focused their questioning on the January 6 investigation and Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Several senators, including Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Chris Coons, D-Del., praised Smith’s handling of the investigation.
As Republican Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., put Smith’s investigation, “You make me want to throw up in my mouth,” he also questioned Smith’s wife’s political views and activities, which appeared to favor the Democratic Party, could have influenced his investigation. The former counsel said that he was appearing to testify in his capacity as special counsel and declined to discuss his family or other personal matters.
“We bring charges after we do an investigation and collect the facts and review the law,” Smith said. “While fear may be contagious, courage is as well.”
Will Trump and the GOP Lose Gun Rights Votes in the Midterms?
For years, gun rights activists counted President Donald Trump as one of their strongest allies in Washington. Now, some say they feel betrayed.
Recent policy moves and statements from Trump and his administration have left gun rights activists questioning Trump’s support of unrestricted Second Amendment rights. Political scholars predict that wavering support may have consequences for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections.
“At this point, other than platitudes and throwing a few bones and meaningless efforts that frankly have not done very much at all to advance the cause, I think that they’re clearly focused on other things,” Brandon Combs, president and founder of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) said. “I don’t see why anybody would take them seriously until they start acting like they care.”
When Minnesota nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a Customs and Border Protection agent in late January, he had a legally registered concealed weapon with him. Trump told the press after the shooting, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.”
The remark angered several gun rights groups. In an FPC statement following the events in Minnesota, they said, “The mere presence of a firearm does not erase a person’s rights, does not turn lawful conduct into wrongdoing, and does not make someone fair game to be arrested or killed for the government’s convenience.”
Others in the administration, including FBI Director Kash Patel, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Gregory Bovino, a senior Border Patrol official, all said Pretti should not have been carrying a gun.
“The problem with the statements that were made by a handful of individuals in the administration after Mr. Pretti’s shooting was that they were overly broad, to the point of being constitutionally and legally inaccurate,” William Sack, director of legal operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview.
The National Rifle Association, which spent more than $45 million to support Trump’s three presidential campaigns, took to social media to denounce the Pretti shooting.
“The NRA unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be,” the organization posted on X.
Due to Trump’s history of campaigning on unrestricted Second Amendment rights, many gun rights activists felt taken aback by his comments.
“I think gun owners are reasonably concerned that a reportedly pro Second Amendment president and administration would come out with such absurd statements as they did after that shooting,” Combs said.
But that wasn’t the first time Trump has taken the side of restricting gun access in his second term.
In September, Trump’s Department of Justice reportedly considered declaring trans people mentally ill to strip them of their Second Amendment rights. This came in the wake of the August 27 shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis that killed two children and injured 21 others. The shooter, who committed suicide at the scene, was transgender.
In February, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for U.S. v. Hemani, which examined whether or not prohibiting “unlawful users” of controlled substances, including marijuana, from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The federal government lawyer took the side of restriction.
Political science professor Robert Spitzer from SUNY Cortland said the case highlighted a fracture between the administration and gun rights activists.
“The administration found itself in the opposition arguing in favor of the federal law that says if you know you’re a drug user, you can’t have guns,” Spitzer said. “This is sort of like the shooting of Pretti in Minneapolis as well, where you have this apparent clash between administration policy and what the gun rights people would like to see.”
Sack, whose organization filed an amicus brief supporting the defendant in the case, Ali Hemani, acknowledged that the broader conservative base has mixed feelings about illegal drugs and said they are not advocating for illegal drug use.
“What we believe the Constitution substantiates is that the government can only take away your Second Amendment rights if you’ve been shown through due process to be dangerous. Using illegal drugs in all instances does not make you dangerous,” Sack said.
In his first year back in office, Trump took several steps aimed at expanding gun rights and rolling back regulations. His administration ordered a review of Biden-era gun policies for potential Second Amendment infringements, repealed stricter oversight of gun dealers, and dropped federal enforcement of restrictions on pistol stabilizing braces. Trump also approved the sale of forced reset triggers, devices that increase a rifle’s firing speed, and backed legislation eliminating a $200 tax on items such as silencers and short-barreled rifles.
“There are certainly, objectively, some places where they have indeed made some sort of positive move. But at this point, I would say the overwhelming number has been the exact opposite of positive,” Combs said of the Trump administration.
Some expressed concern that the growing divide between the Trump administration and gun rights activists might impact the upcoming midterm elections.
Spitzer said that while he does not predict that many voters will abandon Trump, the current discourse may drain enthusiasm and affect voter turnout.
“They’re not going to vote for Democrats all of a sudden. But I think the degree of enthusiasm for Trump, for MAGA, for his supporters is going to be less and that helps the opposing side, the Democrats … where the voter base as we’ve seen so far is highly motivated,” Spitzer said.
Combs expressed increasing frustration with Trump’s actions in his second term and said the administration hasn’t upheld its promise to protect the Second Amendment.
“Has Trump been better than Biden on these things? Sure. But is that really the bar? Are we just talking about stepping over a bar that’s that low?” Combs said. “I thought that they actually cared.”
In a Pew Research poll in the lead-up to the 2024 election, 85 percent of Trump supporters said it is important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns. As of early 2026, the Firearms Policy Coalition released several complaints against the Trump administration’s actions in federal court.
One of the repeated claims is that while the administration has been active in state-level gun rights cases, it has continued to defend federal gun restrictions in court. Specifically, the FPC called on Trump to direct his Department of Justice to end its defense of federal gun control laws and to begin using the full power of the executive branch to actively protect and advance the Second Amendment rights of the American people.
“Where is the administration fighting for pro Second Amendment bills, I mean really fighting for them?” said Combs. “I’m not talking about a sound bite every three months, I’m saying where are they doing something that’s moving the ball, because the only thing that I care about is touchdowns. I wanna see some wins.”
When asked if he believes this frustration could manifest into negative effects in the midterms, Combs said, “I don’t know why it would help. If you’re asking gun owners why they would show up, this is a big issue … What exactly do we have to show up for?”
However, not all scholars believe this will have much impact on Election Day.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA specializing in constitutional law and gun policy, said he believes the gun rights community very much remains in Trump’s camp.
While acknowledging that the administration has taken positions in the Supreme Court defending gun laws that have angered some in the gun rights community, Winkler said he doesn’t think that the administration’s position comes anywhere near enough to convince pro-gun voters that they should vote for Democrats. He said this is because the issues they are angry about are “so minor and inconsequential compared to the things he’s done for them.”
Winkler said one of the reasons he doesn’t believe this issue will affect the midterms is that there aren’t enough single-issue voters on gun rights to make a difference.
Additionally, he said, “I don’t think it’s that significant in light of the fact that they’re not going to vote for a Democrat, and they’re not going to stay home if they think staying home is going to lead to a Democrat being elected.”
Winkler also noted that the Supreme Court will release decisions on the two gun law cases this summer, U.S. v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, which will affect how voters view the administration’s gun policies ahead of the midterms in November.
If the three justices Trump appointed reject gun restrictions on a federal level, it is a positive point in the eyes of gun rights activists.
Spitzer estimated there are roughly 15 million to 18 million Americans for whom the gun issue is their most important issue. While that is not all of Republican voters, he said they make up an important core element of Trump supporters.
“It doesn’t matter if people support you if those people don’t go to vote on Election Day,” Spitzer said.
Published in conjunction with 
Latest in Education
Concerns Rise as States Opt In to National Voucher Plan
The battle for K-12 education funding is on: 27 states sign onto Trump’s national school voucher program (ECCA), igniting concerns from public school advocates over underfunding and school closures.
read moreRepubs and Dems clash over parental opt-out rights in education after Supreme Court ruling involving LGBTQ+ books
Seven months after a Supreme Court Case gave parents sweeping rights to remove their children from lessons that violate religious beliefs, Republicans conveyed concerns Tuesday about school districts ignoring the ruling while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination.
“In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child’s education,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., said in a congressional hearing of a subcommittee he chairs.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled Maryland parents had a First Amendment right to opt their children out of public school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed storybooks that conflict with their religion. Tuesday’s hearing provided a venue for congressional Republicans and Democrats to reflect on how the ruling has changed classrooms.
Democrats voiced worries about the dangerous precedent it sets for censorship and exclusion.
”Inclusion is not indoctrination,” the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. said. “Differences exist in the world around us and part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding.”
Bonamici said Republicans are using parental rights as another means to undermine public education.
Assistant Professor of Law at Yeshiva University, Zalman Rothschild, said he fears the decision could have broad implications and could be disruptive for education.
“I have no idea how in any sense this can be bounded,” Rothschild said. “For example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of nondiscrimination against religion and specifies its wrong to discriminate against Jews, or against Muslims and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, because Chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned.”
Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., urged her Republican colleagues not take the ruling as permission to turn public schools into the “latest front in a culture war.”
Grijalva said Republicans were hypocritical to encourage federal involvement in education when they call themselves “the party that wants things to go back to the local level.”
“I want us to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum,” Grijalva said.
Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., held up a children’s picture book from the Montgomery curriculum, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” while she questioned witnesses. The story follows a young girl as she learns that her favorite uncle is getting married to his partner, Jamie.
Lee said providing holistic education to American children became harder after the ruling.
“It’s about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing,”
Conservative education groups, however, applauded the power shift in schools after the ruling.
“Two of the story books, not only “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” but “Pride Puppy!”, addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens and pride parades. These are individuals who don’t have a clear sense of their identity regarding whether they want to be a firefighter or a fairy when they grow up. What we’re dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives,” said Sarah Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a national advocacy group calling for more parental involvement in schools.
Throughout the hearing, Bonamici tried to steer the conversation to “hearing topics that actually matter,” including ICE inflicting trauma in schools and the effects of the dismantling of the Department of Education. She pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on gun violence in schools and that just yesterday, a 16-year-old was shot at a Montgomery County Public School.
“No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children’s education. We all agree on that,” Bonamici said. “Banning books or preventing students from learning about differences only serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear.”
Published in conjunction with 
House conflicted over One Big Beautiful Bill Act changes to federal student loans and solution to rising college costs
WASHINGTON — In a debate over how to best address rising college tuition, the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee discussed the consequences of recent changes to federal student loan policy on American families.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Republicans blamed administrative bloat for the college affordability crisis. Democrats pointed to a lack of state and federal investment in higher education, unchecked privatization and for-profit colleges.
Average tuition for both public and private four-year colleges has essentially doubled over the last 30 years, after adjusting for inflation, according to CollegeBoard. Both parties emphasized the importance of higher education for a strong American workforce and economy.
“We all agree there is a college affordability crisis in this country,” said Alma Adams, D-N.C., the subcommittee’s top Democrat. “Where we disagree is on the solution.”
Republicans praised their work to change federal loan policy in H.R. 1, now commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or The Working Families Act. The law imposes new borrowing caps, restructures the repayment system, reduces Pell Grant eligibility and reduces safety nets.
“The Working Families Tax Cuts simplified student loan repayment plans from over 50 options down to just two: a fixed ‘mortgage’ style plan and a ‘repayment assistance plan’ that provides targeted relief to borrowers in need,” committee Chairman Burgess Owens, R-Utah, said.
Owens said that the law will also hold schools accountable for student outcomes and ensure that their degrees improve their financial prospects. He said he is confident that restoring market incentives in higher education will lead to better pricing for students.
“The title of this hearing really should be about working families getting run over by the One Big Beautiful Bill,” Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said. “Again, I know they’re trying to rebrand the H.R. 1 to a different title, but the fact of the matter is, most people in this country have sort of figured out what a scam it is.”
Witness Julie Margetta Morgan is president of The Century Foundation and previously worked in the U.S. Department of Education. She said that the bill leaves students with two options: not attending college because it is too expensive or taking on risky private loans.
“These loans are going to have a higher interest rate, and they are going to have fewer options for people when they get in trouble on paying their loan,” Morgan said. “They don’t have the forgiveness option, they don’t have the income-based repayment options.”
Columbia economics and education Professor Judith Scott-Clayton said, in general, federal student loans have been a safe option for students because they offer many protections, including income-based repayment options, interest rate subsidies and very low default rates.
“All that being said, I think we’re definitely at a moment right now where there is so much chaos going on in the student loan repayment world,” Scott-Clayton said.
Scott-Clayton said families’ hesitation and anxiety about taking on student debt are not unreasonable at this time.
She said universities are feeling pressured because they can’t necessarily count on a guaranteed supply of families willing to pay what they charge every year, especially since the education sector is under fire and students are very price-sensitive.
Wellesley College Economics Professor Phillip Levine created MyinTution, which gives families access to a projected cost of attendance once financial aid is factored in, called the net price.
“It relies on very basic financial characteristics, how much money did you make last year, a few basic asset categories, what do you have in the stock market, that sort of thing,” Levine said. “It is very valuable for the institution to make it possible for prospective students to get off of the sticker price.”
Bob Onder, R-Mo., emphasized bipartisan legislation to improve college price transparency. His Student Financial Clarity Act creates a universal net price calculator and expands the college scorecard for students to compare costs across institutions.
Evan Bertis-Sample is a Northwestern University student from a low-income family. He receives the maximum financial aid package from Northwestern and also takes out a subsidized federal student loan each quarter to cover housing costs.
“I’m a first-generation student, so no one in my family before me has really had to deal with this type of stuff,” Bertis-Sample said. “So I had no advice given to me, so navigating what student loans look like, what financial aid packages are, and how to interpret them was definitely a big struggle.”
The committee has approved the Student Financial Clarity Act, and Onder said he is hopeful the bill will be brought to the House floor soon.
Health & Science
‘Time to go fight Big Pharma’: Navigating US health care system and high costs strains mental health of people with chronic disease
People with chronic health conditions struggle to maintain their mental health while navigating the U.S. health care system and recent changes in federal policy.
read more‘Pharma death grip’: Lawmakers warn U.S. is too dependent on China-made drugs
WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats urged the Trump administration Wednesday to limit imports of generic pharmaceuticals from China to the United States, for the sake of national security.
The Senate Aging Committee recently condemned the Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers for keeping Americans in the dark about where their drugs were originally manufactured, in many cases, China and India. On Wednesday, senators honed in on the sheer amount of key pharmaceutical ingredients that China sends to the U.S.
China has a “pharma death grip” on the U.S., said witness and author Gordon Chang. The country controls around 90% of key starting materials to make active pharmaceutical ingredients and generics.
Witness and author Rosemary Gibson said stopping these exports would literally be fatal.
“A lot of people would die in this country,” Gibson said. “Our health care systems would cease to function. Yeah, if China wanted to spread infectious disease, we would not have the tools to be able to treat people.”
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fl., pushed for the Department of Commerce to investigate if certain imports threaten national security, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. If so, the president would be allowed to impose tariffs, quotas or other restrictions on those imports and reduce drug sales from China.
“Section 232 tariffs are very important in that regard,” Chang said. “Other tariffs are also possible.”
Ultimately, bringing back domestic production is key, Chang said. He said China has been able to outmaneuver the FDA because of its monopoly on all parts of the chain, and to do that, the U.S. needs to break it.
“China developed this monopoly. We can take it back, but we’ve got to know that within two or three years there is a period of extreme vulnerability,” Chang said.
Democrats did not dispute the core problem of U.S. dependence on foreign drug supply chains, but said the issue reflects broader market failures in the domestic pharmaceutical system, not simply a geopolitical issue with China.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, pointed to structural reasons between the two countries, such as China’s government subsidies, weaker environment rules and cheaper labor. She urged Congress to empower the FDA to conduct rigorous oversight and make sure foreign manufacturers comply with U.S. safety standards.
Stronger FDA oversight and policies would encourage manufacturing in the U.S. and its allies, Gillibrand said. She voiced support for “friend-shoring sourcing,” which means moving production to trusted allies, in addition to moving production back into American territory.
“While the United States does not need to replicate the steps that the Chinese government has taken exactly, we have to realize that China is moving at a much faster pace than we are,” Gillibrand said. “The United States has been the standard bearer for clinical innovation for decades. It would be a detriment to our global leadership if we let China surpass us in innovation.”
Medical schools commit to increased nutrition education at RFK Jr.’s request
WASHINGTON – Fifty three medical schools will dedicate at least 40 hours of students’ degree requirements to nutrition education beginning next fall, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced on Thursday.
In a survey of 133 U.S. medical schools, a 2015 study from the Journal of Biomedical Education found that medical students typically receive about 19 hours of nutrition education across the four years of their education.
The schools’ commitment to the initiative, which was developed with the Department of Education, marks the latest advancement of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. He said it is one of his “proudest days” at the Department of Health and Human Services.
“Today represents a mutual recognition that HHS and leaders in American medicine can come together to advance shared goals and interests,” Kennedy said.
In an August 2025 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy said he believes poor nutrition is the root of the “chronic-disease epidemic” and called on medical education organizations to include “rigorous” nutrition education in medical training.
Kennedy also said HHS will provide $5 million through a National Institutes of Health “nutrition education challenge” to support curriculum development and clinical training. The program will extend to medical schools as well as nursing residency, nutrition science and dietitian programs.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon echoed Kennedy’s statement that the initiative does not mean the Trump administration dictates what medical schools teach and said her department will “never mandate curriculum.”
“That’s not our job,” McMahon said.
American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala, who spoke at the event, told Medill News Service that he thinks the push for more nutrition education will spread “contagiously, in a good way.”
“When I talk to people involved in medical education… it’s a no-brainer,” Mukkamala said. “It’s wonderful to be that aligned on something where (for) everybody now, this should be more on their compass than it is.”
According to the New York Times, Kennedy worked for months to secure partnerships from schools across the country and at times threatened funding eligibility if schools did not teach enough about nutrition.
Schools involved were listed on the HHS website as a “committed partner,” including Tulane University School of Medicine, University of Texas Houston McGovern Medical School and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
Kennedy encouraged participation from schools that did not join the initiative.
“If your school is not on today’s list, that does not mean the door’s closed,” Kennedy said. “We expect you to step forward.”
Latest in Environment
Wondering How to Talk About Climate Change? Take a Lesson from Bad Bunny
Discussing climate change can make a difference. Focusing on the impacts in everyday life is a good place to start, experts say.
read moreSupreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac
Published in conjunction with 
Potomac sewer spill remains ‘active incident’ one month later
WASHINGTON — Exactly one month after a major sewer line collapsed, pouring raw sewage into the Potomac River, environmental advocates and experts warned the public health threat could continue for months.
The initial spill occurred on Jan. 19 when a section of the Potomac Interceptor, a regional sewer system, collapsed along the Clara Barton Parkway in Montgomery County, Md. According to DC Water, which operates and manages the sewer system, approximately 243 million gallons of wastewater have overflowed from the collapse site.
Since the collapse, government and independent researchers have monitored the quality of the water around the rupture, specifically testing for E. coli. This bacterium indicates sewage contamination, which could cause vomiting and diarrhea for anyone who comes into contact with the water. Experts say water conditions can change day by day, making consistent monitoring critical.
Despite a temporary remedy, the effects of the enormous spill will likely be prolonged because of the limitations of the fix and the weather conditions. That creates uncertainty, inconvenience and possible health risks for the many people who enjoy recreation by the river.
Betsy Nicholas, the president of the Potomac Riverkeeper Network, a local environmental advocacy group, said the weather conditions immediately following the spill could prolong its impact.
“The entire Potomac was completely frozen just a few days after this spill started,” Nicholas said. “So all of that [sewage] was contained in the ice, and the river is going to thaw more slowly than we’d see on our streets.”
As the ice melts gradually, she said, contaminants trapped beneath the surface could continue affecting water quality for weeks or even months.
“I can’t imagine going through the warm months into the summer without being able to get in and kayak and swim and all of those things in the Potomac,” Nicholas said. “Hopefully, we will get enough information to do that and stay safe.”
The Potomac Riverkeeper Network’s latest findings suggested people should avoid areas closest to the rupture site, particularly around Lock 10 and the adjacent C&O Canal, where contaminated water has reached the banks. Walking along the waterfront in places such as Georgetown or National Harbor was considered low risk, Nicholas said, but kayaking, rowing or other activities that involve direct contact with the water should be avoided for now.
DC Water Chief Engineer Moussa Wone said permanent repairs of the pipe would take up to nine months. A temporary bypass structure was installed to reroute wastewater back into the sewer system.
“There’s also the potential, until it’s fully repaired, that we’re going to have small overflows there,” Nicholas said. “Ultimately, we would like to see daily monitoring and posting of the results so that we can make sure that everyone stays safe.”
Hedrick Belin, President of the Potomac Conservancy, an environmental non-profit organization, called the spill “an active incident.” He said public access to up-to-date water quality data is critical to protecting public health and safety.
“Until [the] 40 to 60 million gallons of sewage that’s flowing every day is back in a pipe, fully contained, risks to public health, to the environment, to recreation continue,” Belin said.
DC Water is conducting daily water quality tests and posting the results online, while the Potomac Riverkeeper Network is working with the University of Maryland to publish weekly updates on Instagram. Nicholas said it’s essential to have multiple independent sources sharing and verifying data.
Nicholas and Belin both said that they believe local and federal governments have not adequately warned the public. Washington did not issue an advisory urging people and pets to avoid the river until Feb. 12, nearly a month after the spill began.
“People should be calling for stronger leadership at the local, state, and federal level about this ongoing incident, demanding more accountability, more communication, more information, and ultimately urgency to get this crisis under control,” Belin said.
Latest in National Security
Golden Dome concerns grow after Greenland deal, space weapon disclosure
Experts warn Medill News Service the project could be inefficient — or an offensive war machine.
read moreData and decisions: AI is changing how the military operates
WASHINGTON –– From analyzing satellite imagery to helping commanders process battlefield information, artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly important tool in how the United States military plans and conducts operations throughout the Middle East and the world.
“AI has become a huge focus across government projects in a really short amount of time,” said Maddie Brown, a project manager working on AI systems at Credence Management Solutions, a government consulting and defense contracting firm.
As defense agencies accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence tools, policymakers and researchers have said the technology is transforming everything from intelligence analysis to logistics planning. But the rapid expansion of AI in national security also raises new questions about reliability, oversight and how much the government should rely on private technology companies to build systems that could shape the future of warfare.
AI is already influencing how the U.S. military processes enormous volumes of data gathered from satellites, drones, sensors and other communications networks. These capabilities have become increasingly important as U.S. forces continue operations in the Middle East, where intelligence systems must rapidly analyze surveillance data to identify potential threats like drone attacks and missile launches.
The push for AI reflects a broader investment trend as the Department of Defense requested about $1.8 billion for AI programs in its fiscal year 2025 budget, part of the overall defense budget of $850 billion.
AI and military data
Most of the military’s interest in AI stems from the sheer amount of information modern defense systems produce. Intelligence collected from satellites, surveillance aircrafts, drones and digital communications must be processed quickly to detect threats and guide operations.
Patrick Meyers, a proposals manager at Credence, said AI’s ability to process large volumes of data is one of its most valuable military applications.
“There’s a lot of data that comes through from all kinds of different sources, whether it’s sensors, satellites or other intelligence systems,” Meyers said. “AI can reduce work hours on administrative tasks or analyzing data from maybe two or three days down to an hour.”
Speed is crucial in military environments where commanders must respond rapidly to evolving threats. AI can also help analysts identify connections between different pieces of information.
“AI helps classify the data, clean it up and package it in ways that make it easier to review and analyze quickly,” Meyers said.
Brown said many government agencies are first applying AI to modernize internal processes rather than battlefield technology.
“The procurement process is a super manual and tedious workflow,” Brown said. “A lot of what we’re trying to do is automate those tasks so they can focus on more strategic objectives and help the warfighter mission.”
Private companies and national security
The U.S. government has increasingly relied on private technology companies to develop many of the AI systems used in defense and national security programs. Gwanhoo Lee, a professor of information technology and analytics at American University, said this reflects where much of the world’s AI innovation is occurring.
“The government is becoming increasingly dependent on private technology companies for AI capabilities, particularly in areas such as frontier models, cloud infrastructure, advanced semiconductors and highly specialized talent,” Lee said.
However, Lee said the relationship between government and industry is not just a simple one way dependence.
“It is more accurate to describe this relationship as strategic interdependence,” Lee said. “Governments still set missions, fund research, shape regulatory frameworks and determine how technologies are deployed.”
Federal data has shown that this collaboration has grown rapidly. The number of U.S. government AI contracts increased 254 to 657 in a single year, with the DoD accounting for the majority of those agreements.
One of the companies working with defense agencies is Scale AI, a San Francisco-based technology firm that builds data infrastructure used to train AI systems. Dan Tadross, Scale AI’s general manager for public sector programs, said AI is already helping defense agencies manage intelligence data.
“AI is already helping the military process intelligence, analyze imagery, and sift through enormous volumes of data,” Tadross said.
According to Tadross, the next phase of military AI development will focus less on simply analyzing data and more on using that information to support strategic planning and operational decision-making.
“The next step is turning that data into sustained decisional advantage using AI applications to analyze scenarios, generate planning options, and ensure commanders have the information they need to make informed decisions,” Tadross said.
Tadross added that emerging AI systems could eventually monitor operational environments continuously, helping military leaders adapt plans in real time while maintaining human oversight.
“That means deploying agentic systems that can track complex operational environments in real time, run simulations, and continuously update living plans with human commanders remaining in the decision loop,” Tadross said.
Recently, the relationship with the government and the private sector has been scrutinized following a dispute between the DoD and AI company Anthropic, the developers behind Claude AI. President Donald Trump announced the restriction of using Anthropic’s AI systems after the company refused to loosen safeguards that limited how its models could be used for autonomous weapons and surveillance. The federal government is now phasing out Anthropic’s technology and has designated it as a potential supply chain risk.
Risks in defense environments
Despite its advantages, AI also introduces new risks when used in national security settings.
“AI systems deployed in national security and defense operate in environments that are fundamentally different from most commercial settings,” Lee said. “These environments are adversarial, dynamic and high stakes.”
AI models trained in controlled environments may behave unpredictably in real-world military scenarios, especially if adversaries attempt to interfere with them in the form of cyberattacks, data poisoning, or more. Another risk is overreliance on automated systems.
“Human operators may place too much trust in algorithmic outputs, which can lead to automation bias and reduced critical human oversight,” Lee said.
Brown said similar concerns arise when building AI tools for government agencies.
“The biggest risk is error,” Brown said. “Who does that fall on? Is it the person who approves the process, the AI system itself or the team that delivered the solution?”
Developers typically address those risks by keeping human oversight built into AI systems.
“You want humans in the loop and able to own the work the AI tool provided,” Brown said.
The future of military AI
AI is becoming a rapidly expanding part of global defense spending. Analysts estimate the global military AI market was worth about $9.3 billion in 2024 and could grow to more than $19 billion by 2030 as governments invest in advanced technologies.
Within the U.S., defense IT spending has also increased significantly. The Department of Defense’s total IT budget recently reached about $66 billion, with service branches expanding funding for AI-related systems and autonomous technologies.
Experts say those investments reflect the growing importance of data analysis and machine learning in modern warfare. According to Lee, AI is both improving existing government processes and how institutions operate while focusing on efficiency.
“AI tools are being used to enhance logistics planning, intelligence analysis, cybersecurity monitoring, maintenance prediction, document processing, and administrative decision support,” Lee said.
Over time, however, AI could reshape how decisions are made in military and government organizations. Lee said recent examples of U.S. operations in Iran and Venezuela demonstrate how AI can accelerate the military decision cycle by processing large volumes of intelligence data and identifying patterns faster than traditional analysis methods.
Some policymakers and analysts have warned that the implications of AI extend far beyond the speed of military decision-making. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who wrote extensively about the geopolitical implications of emerging technologies, argued that AI could fundamentally change the nature of conflict and global security.
“Artificial intelligence is not simply another technological innovation,” Kissinger said in an article for The Atlantic in 2018. “It represents a fundamental transformation in how humans understand and conduct warfare.”
Senators discuss new legislation on foreign financial gifts to American universities, amid national security concerns
WASHINGTON — In a debate over the exploitation of American universities by foreign governments, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions examined what lawmakers described as a “critical national security vulnerability” at Thursday’s hearing.
Republicans argued that foreign governments, particularly China, are giving money to American universities to gain access to sensitive research, intellectual property and political influence on campuses. Democrats warned that while transparency and oversight are necessary, overly restrictive policies could undermine international academic collaboration and exaggerate the scale of the threat.
“We cannot be naive. There are times when the money serves allegedly as cover to infiltrate universities to steal research and talent and to foment anti-American ideology,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the committee’s chairman. “This is a national security concern and requires federal legislation.”
Senators discussed potential ways to increase transparency and oversight of universities’ reporting of foreign gifts and contracts.
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., questioned witnesses on whether Congress should fully cut off academic ties with Chinese institutions and researchers.
“I don’t think you have to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I do think much more stringent restrictions need to be enacted here,” said Craig Singleton, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
However, Kim warned that completely cutting off ties with Chinese universities could have negative effects on research and academia. He worried about the “presumption of concern upon people of Asian descent, people of descent of other countries that we are raising suspicion about.”
“The Asian American community has raised significant concerns about this,” he said. “I just want us to be knowledgeable about these broader knock-on effects that can cascade and very much affect not just the health of our universities and our research partnerships but also…the signal that it sends to the diversity of different communities in America.”
Republican senators countered that the scale of foreign funding demands strong action.
“Foreign government influence in our universities is gaining traction through these large, obscene gifts or grants,” Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., said.
Federal data shows that China has contributed roughly $6.8 billion in gifts and contracts to American universities over time. Universities also reported about $400 million in transactions involving entities on U.S. government watchlists or restricted entity lists that pose threats to national security, foreign policy interests or public safety.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, pointed out that incomplete reporting by universities has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to fully understand the scale and purpose of foreign funding.
At the center of the legislative debate was the proposed Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act, which would require universities to report foreign gifts greater than $50,000. It would change Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which already requires universities to report gifts above $250,000 to the Department of Education.
Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she worried about adding more responsibilities to a “dismantled” Department of Education by changing the reporting system.
“I’m pretty troubled that we’re having this hearing today to add even more responsibilities to the Department of Education when we still in this committee have not had Secretary (Linda) McMahon before us to answer some really serious questions about what she is doing right now which is an illegal scheme to dismantle the Department of Education,” said Murray.
She also expressed concern over the new shared oversight of foreign gifts and contracts between the Department of Education and the Department of State. It’s “part of its broader effort to dismantle the Department of Education,” and that it would make compliance more complicated for universities.
Cassidy closed the hearing by thanking President Donald Trump for his action on the issue and said passing the DETERRENT Act is the next step to close loopholes and increase transparency to Congress, intelligence agencies and the public, thereby increasing accountability.
DETERRENT was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the committee in late March. There is no vote scheduled on the bill as of yet.
Latest in Living
In photos: Lion dancing, drums fill D.C. Chinatown at midnight for Lunar New Year kickoff
Lunar New Year celebrations began in Chinatown late Monday evening, as performers led onlookers through a parade filled with lion dancing and drums.
read moreAmid anti-ICE protests, peace-marching Buddhist monks deliver a non-controversial message to thousands in DC
WASHINGTON — Tears welled in Cynthia Flanders’ eyes Wednesday as she reflected on a group of Buddhist monks’ walk to promote peace. Wearing a beanie that read “it’s okay not to be okay,” Flanders traveled from her Michigan hometown to the Washington region solely for this experience.
“When I heard that they were marching to remind us of the peace that each one of us has, every time I say that, it brings tears to my eyes because I’m so touched by that reminder, you know?” Flanders said. “I’m here to get back in touch with a warm, soft, less brutal heart, and remember we’re all connected.”
The monks’ 4-month, 2,300-mile walk journey to DC came at a time when anti-ICE protests have popped up around the country, but the monks avoided political comments about ICE or anything else, Brandon Dotson, a Georgetown University professor of Buddhist studies, said in an interview with the Medill News Service.
“I think we can interpret it in that context and say, ‘Well, this is an opportune time to talk about non-violence, to talk about peace, when we do have so many voices in our country that are promoting violence,” Dotson said. “But I don’t think that [the monks] are necessarily leading us to that conclusion.”
In fact, their public statements at a Lincoln Memorial ceremony on Wednesday afternoon did not advocate particular religious principles, but rather urged kindness and mindfulness practices.
“Love and kindness does not need power, money, or a title,” said Walk for Peace leader Bhikkhu Pannakara as he stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial. “It is simply the choice to stop before hurting, to sharpen before speaking, If each person takes just one second to ask, will this hurt anyone? The world would already be kinder.”
Dotson said this nonpolitical approach may protect them from potential criticism.
“For their sake, I hope that they’re not going to be too politicized, just because it is dangerous in our country, especially as an immigrant and as a foreigner, to be putting your head above the parapet,” Dotson said. “So I think what they’ve done has been very skillful.”
Regardless of what prompted them, Flanders said she was touched by the monks’ reminders of peace during this moment in politics that has frustrated her.
“I’ve been really, quite filled with anguish about what is happening in our country and how people feel so divided,” Flanders said. “My heart has felt very brittle and in anger about things that I feel are unjust.”
Flanders and longtime friend Amy Moore have engaged in transcendental meditation, a practice that draws from Buddhist principles, since attending Iowa’s Maharishi International University 50 years ago. Moore, who lives in Utah, was compelled to travel across the country to support the monks. After meeting up in DC, the two friends spent three days walking alongside the monks.
“I’ve been following the monks and I have been praying for peace forever,” Moore said, arm in arm with Flanders.
Moore was one of the first people to arrive at the monks’ first DMV appearance at Washington National Cathedral on Tuesday. She said that as she watched the crowd grow, a warm and joyful energy was “palpable.”
After concluding their march in Maryland on Thursday, the marchers posted to Facebook: “Every welcome, every smile, every offering, every prayer, and every step you took with us brought us to this beautiful moment of completion today.”
In Photos: ‘Walk for Peace’ Buddhist monks complete Unity Walk on Embassy Row
WASHINGTON — On the 108th day of their walk across much of the U.S., a group of Buddhist monks arrived in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday for the final leg of their ‘Walk for Peace’.
The monks, who began their pilgrimage in Fort Worth, Texas, described the walk as a spiritual journey promoting peace, compassion and unity.
After an interfaith ceremony at the Washington National Cathedral, the monks were joined by others for a Unity Walk down Embassy Row.
D.C. police escorted the monks down the street with cars, motorcycles and police bikes.
Latest Business
Senate wrestles with AI attacks, holding tech giants accountable
Senators questioned a panel of experts on the AI’s current capabilities and potential regulation.
read moreSenate fails to advance data center ratepayer bill amid clash over ‘toothless’ protections
WASHINGTON – The Senate failed to advance a bill aimed at stopping households and small businesses from footing the bill for data centers’ growing electricity needs Wednesday, falling three votes short of the 60 needed to move the measure past the filibuster.
The House passed its version of the legislation in an overwhelming 417-3 vote earlier this month, but opposition by Senate Democratic leadership kept the measure from clearing a procedural hurdle just days before the Senate’s pre-election recess.
The Ratepayer Protection Act, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), would require state regulators to consider making data centers pay for the new infrastructure needed to serve them rather than passing those costs on to customers.
Under the measure, state regulators would have one year to begin considering the federal standard and two years to decide whether to adopt it. States, however, would not be required to put those protections into place.
That distinction became the central point of contention leading up to Wednesday’s vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that the measure left too much discretion to state regulators.
“An optional guardrail is not a guardrail at all,” Sen. Schumer said Tuesday. “The core difference is simple. This bill makes the protections optional. Senate Democrats want to make it mandatory, plain and simple.”
Sen. Husted defended the state-based approach, arguing that electricity regulation is largely handled at the state level.
“The federal government doesn’t run the grid,” Husted told reporters Tuesday. “The states run the grid. You have to do it in a collaborative process with the states.”
The debate comes as the rapid expansion of data centers has raised concerns over who should pay for the power plants, transmission lines and other infrastructure needed to serve facilities that consume enormous amounts of electricity.
Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, said data centers can raise customers’ electricity costs in two primary ways. Utilities can spend billions of dollars on new infrastructure and spread those costs across their customers, while increased electricity demand can also drive up prices in wholesale power markets.
Jesse Buchsbaum, an economist and fellow at the nonpartisan research organization Resources for the Future, said whether customers end up paying more depends largely on how much of those added costs data centers cover themselves.
If a data center pays for its infrastructure and contributes to the broader costs of maintaining the grid, Buchsbaum said rates for other customers could fall. If it does not, some of those costs can be spread across households and businesses.
Both experts said the federal standard in Husted’s bill could provide meaningful protections if states adopted it. The uncertainty is whether they would.
“The bill doesn’t create requirements or even incentives for states to take their actions,” Buschsbaum said. “It really just provides a voluntary framework that states can adopt if they choose to.”
Democrats have offered competing proposals that would place more direct federal requirements on large electricity users. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) introduced the GRID Savings Act in July, which would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish rules requiring large electricity users to cover certain grid costs associated with connecting to the system.
“This is nothing more than a messaging bill on the eve of an election,” Heinrich said during a pre-vote Senate floor debate Wednesday. “Congress needs to pass legislation with real teeth.”
Husted’s office pushed back on criticism that the bill is merely symbolic.
In a statement to Medill News Service, spokesperson Olivia Tripodi said many states are already searching for ways to protect ratepayers by requiring data centers to pay for the full incremental costs of new infrastructure, and passing this bill would have provided them with a framework to accomplish that.
The data center issue holds particular significance for Husted, who is running to retain his Senate seat against former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Electricity prices and data center development have become prominent issues in the race.
Asked Tuesday whether the bill was tied to his reelection fight, Husted said his focus was not on securing a political win.
“I’m not looking for a win for me,” Husted said. “I’m looking for a win for the American people.”
The vote leaves unresolved how Congress will address the infrastructure costs associated with the rapid growth of data centers, though Husted said protecting customers from those costs remains a problem lawmakers must solve.
“We have to make sure that the growth of these data centers does not mean higher electric bills for working families, for senior citizens or for small businesses,” Husted said before the vote. “The companies driving this growth should be held responsible for the power they need to operate, not the American ratepayer.”
Patent director decreases backlog, urges action on expiring funding authority
WASHINGTON – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires fought for the agency’s immediate fiscal future before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on Tuesday, citing a three-year low in backlog but glossing over details of patent quality.
At stake was Squires’ concerns about the agency’s financial independence set to expire Dec. 11, after a short-term continuing resolution extended the authority earlier this month.
Lawmakers weighed the impact of recent layoffs and filings generated by artificial intelligence. In October 2025, the agency announced layoffs of about 1% of its workforce tied to a government shutdown.
Squires said he wants to work with Congress to extend the fee-setting authority “far into the future.” He later warned of “very disruptive” results if they fail to secure a permanent or long-term renewal.
“We would be getting back a decade of gains in productivity supporting American ingenuity,” Squires said. “Our stakeholders, I believe, would be very upset.”
Patents have closely followed the country’s technological and cultural innovations, from an African American inventor’s 1872 patent that made rail travel safer and easier, to another in 1914 for the Girl Scouts of the USA’s trefoil badge symbolizing equality between girls and boys on the eve of women’s suffrage.
“Strong and predictable patent and trademark protections are the bedrock of American innovation, manufacturing and investment,” Subcommittee Chair Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. “But our system is not perfect.”
The fee structure was originally granted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2011, which allows the agency to independently determine patent and trademark fees. Funds are meant to recover estimated aggregate operational costs and stay within the patent office.
Of the agency’s stakeholders, small businesses and independent inventors are now at a greater risk of being priced out or drowned out by low-cost, AI-generated filings originating overseas.
Squires said to manage the influx of these additional applications, the office appointed a specialized cyber task force to evaluate scraping issues and automated submission tactics that try to expedite filings. The office also integrated AI in its internal workflows, deploying large language models to help examiners process application summaries.
These changes reduced review times from minutes down to seconds, cutting down the application inventory by about 10%, according to Squires’ statement. However, he dodged questions on how the agency ensured the quality of patents with a smaller workforce and faster speed.
“That’s not an answer to how you can back up your claim,” said Ranking Member Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who then asked for a written statement detailing the metrics used to determine this improvement.
Several senators, including Tillis and Chris Coons, D-Del., further emphasized the mounting technological competition with China. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., cited data showing how China now leads the U.S. in 57 out of 64 “critical technologies,” a reversal from China leading in only three categories two decades ago.
Squires encouraged inventors to bring forward more innovations, including ones that are AI-assisted.
“People may make a decision that ‘Oh, I don’t think it’s going to be eligible. I won’t file it,’” Squires said. “We won’t even see what we’re missing, so the top of the funnel has to be wide. I believe it is.”
Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., doubled down on how major pharmaceutical manufacturers would layer additional patents around single products to stifle competition and inflate prices in the drug industry.
Calling the practice “outrageous” and “expensive,” he urged the agency to oppose illegitimate extensions, while still being prompt in issuing patents.
“The folks with the patent, who’ve enjoyed exclusivity, want to extend it forever, and we need a patent office to stand up to them and protect the concept of competition,” Welch said during the exchange.
Senators also scrutinized the office’s political independence. After the agency filed federal trademark applications for President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” initiative earlier this year, it faced bipartisan questioning over domain hijacking and government trademark usage. The “Board of Peace” is a controversial U.S.-led international organization that oversees issues related to the Gaza Strip.
When Schiff pressed for who requested the filings for an entity that did not exist at the time, Squires testified he could not recall the origin and again opted for a written explanation to the committee. The applications were abandoned in July.
Throughout the hearing, Squires affirmed the agency was “notching wins” that help generate jobs for IP-intensive industries.
“Now we are rapidly scaling to deliver President Trump’s ‘golden age,’ and we are all in, full stop,” Squires said. “To fire up America’s genius, full throttle.”
SOTU: Health Care
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Congress should approve his plan to replace Obamacare with a new health care program that would provide “affordable alternative” insurance options and criticized Democrats for trying to impose “a socialist takeover of our health care system.”
“A good life for American families requires the most affordable, innovative and high-quality health care system on earth,” Trump said in his third State of the Union address.
Trump said he has proposed health care plans that would be up to 60% cheaper than the Affordable Care Act plans. Both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond when asked if a specific replacement plan has existed or ever will.
The president blamed Democrats for not providing the American people with the health care reforms he has promised.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Trump, referring to the Democrats.
Democrats stood up at this comment, pointed their fingers at Trump and shouted “YOU.”
Trump said 130 Democrats endorse legislation to impose a “socialist takeover” of the health care system by “taking away the private health insurance plans of 180 million.”
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are pushing for a “Medicare for All” plan that would end private health insurance while other candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., are pushing to expand on Obamacare.
“We will never let socialism destroy American health care,” Trump said.
Trump emphasized the administration’s efforts to protect patients with pre-existing conditions, to which Democrats threw up their hands and shook their heads in disagreement. Led by House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate and House Democrats brought more than 80 patients, doctors and health care advocates from across the country as guests to the speech.
“President Trump will speak to an audience filled with Americans who are suffering because of his broken promises on prescription drug costs and his all-out assault on Americans with preexisting conditions,” Pelosi said in a press release Tuesday morning.
The president also called upon Congress to pass legislation to lower prescription drug prices.
“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” the president said.
Democrats responded to this by booing and holding up three fingers to represent H.R. 3, legislation proposed by the late Rep. Elijah E. Cummings that would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate certain drug prices. The bill has been on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk for over a month after being passed in the House.
Generic prescription drug prices dropped 1% in 2018, the first price drop in 45 years, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump said it was the first time in 51 years. Brand-name drug prices, however, are still increasing.
Trump said the administration will continue to make health care more transparent by requiring hospitals to make their prices negotiated with insurers public and easily accessible online. He also pointed to the passage of administration-backed legislation called “Right to Try,” which allows terminally ill patients access to drugs not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration if they feel they have tried all other options.
He also said he has launched new initiatives to improve care for Americans with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s and those struggling with mental health challenges, in addition to pursuing new cures for childhood cancer and AIDS.
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday afternoon to further discuss Trump’s health care policies and overcoming pharmaceutical barriers in particular.
Trump Sticks By Wall in State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s call for a wall to secure America’s southern border in his State of the Union address Tuesday night was no surprise to opponents.
Jennifer Johnson, the policy director at the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said Trump continually characterizes the southern border as a violent area.
“More of a reality check, these are families and children seeking protection, fleeing spiraling violence and poverty,” she said.
Chris Montoya, who served as a Customs and Border Protection agent for 21 years, said that “crime rates are pretty low in border cities. Being a border patrol agent is one of the safest law enforcement jobs. All those things together means a safe border.”
Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., invited as his guest a mother who had been separated from her children at the border.
Other Democrats brought undocumented immigrants as their guests, including Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.
Rep. Sheila Jackson, D-Texas, was enthusiastic about their attendance at the address. “Their presence here today is representative of the big tent that America is,” she said.
In his address, Trump attributed what he called at crisis at the border to America’s “reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, and hospitals that are so crowded you can’t get in.” He referenced San Diego and El Paso as being cities that were once violent, and now safe with the addition of physical barriers.
Trump also mentioned the prevalence of MS-13 within the country. “They almost all come through our Southern border,” he said.
Montoya said MS-13 members do enter through the southern border on rare occasions, but it is uncommon for CBP agents to make an arrest.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin is the ranking member on the Senate Subcommittee for Border Security and Immigration. He said nothing changed in Trump’s rhetoric. “If we’re waiting on him, we’re not going to get this solved,” he said.
Washingtonians alternately protest, celebrate the State of the Union
WASHINGTON – DC-area residents had very different reactions to President Donald Trump’s second State of the Union address Tuesday night. But whether they celebrated or denounced the event, emotions were strong.
Around 40-50 people gathered at each of two intersections near the Capitol ahead of the address — far fewer than the 400 people who protested last year, according to Resist DC, the community action group that organized both years’ protests.
People lined the sidewalks along the streets that President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and other Trump cabinet members’ motorcades were expected pass by. They held homemade signs lit with string lights so they would be visible to government officials in their cars and chanted anti-Trump messages to music and drums.
Eileen Minarick, 70, said she was protesting simply “because the state of our union is terrible.”
Elsewhere in the city, local bar patrons gathered to drink beer, compete in presidential bingo and watch the State of the Union.
Grassroots activist group CODEPINK hosted a number of guest speakers, including actor Danny Glover, for a lively discussion before the main event. Topics ranged from the Bolivarian revolution to ending domestic violence.
Anita Jenkins, spokeswoman for Stand Up for Democracy, riled the crowd with a call to establish the District of Columbia the 51st state in the United States.
“The people of D.C. have no representation… We have nobody to speak for us,” she said. Modifying the words of America’s early founders, she said, “Taxation without representation is a rip-off.”
As President Trump appeared on the projector, shouts of disapproval rose from the bar patrons. The State of the Union 2019 had begun and the energy was energetic in its moroseness.
Across town, the atmosphere was also charged. Members of DC Young Republicans and Arlington Falls Church Young Republicans filled a restaurant for a celebratory viewing party.
“In the past, most of the people in this room voted for a wall… but the proper wall never got built,” said Donald Trump. He paused and then said, “I’ll get it built.” Hoots and hollers erupted in the bar and two girls were seen smiling and hugging each other.
Though Trump stressed unity in his national address, DC-area residents remained divided in their reactions.
2020 Candidates Alternate Cheers, Hisses to Trump Wall, Immigration Proposals during State of Union
WASHINGTON – Several Democratic 2020 presidential candidates expressed their displeasure with many of President Donald Trump’s policies during the State of the Union address Tuesday.
Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., could be seen shaking their heads when Trump mentioned controversial topics such as his commitment to building a border wall and the dangers of migrant caravans heading to the U.S. southern border.
Harris, who announced her candidacy on Jan. 21, shook her head and visibly mouthed, “They’re not,” as Trump said, “Large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States.”
In a Facebook Live address before the State of the Union, Harris told viewers, “It’s a moment for a president to rise above politics and unite the country with a vision that includes all Americans, not just the ones who may have voted for them. It’s a moment to bring us together.”
Early in the address, Harris was often reluctant to give Trump a standing ovation, asking her colleagues, “Really?” as they cheered the president’s comments about space exploration.
The candidates and their Democratic colleagues booed and hissed as Trump labeled the numerous investigations into his campaign finance and relationship with Russia “ridiculous partisan investigations.”
“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” he said. “It just doesn’t work that way!”
Democrats cheered later as Trump mentioned that women have filled 58 percent of new jobs in the past year. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has formed a presidential exploratory committee, pointed at the newly elected House Democrats, who stood up and chanted, “USA, USA.”
“I think he didn’t realize that all the female jobs he created were for [congresswomen],” Gillibrand said after the speech.
The Democratic candidates stood and applauded with everyone in the chamber when Trump recognized World War II veterans, a SWAT team member and a childhood cancer survivor.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., sat stoically as Trump denounced socialism. Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, is widely considered likely e to enter the presidential race. Unlike Sanders, Gillibrand and Harris stood and applauded as Trump said, “America will never be a socialist country.”
TRUMP STRIKES CHORD WITH WOMEN, FALLS FLAT ON BIPARTISAN BORDER WALL PITCH
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump got one of his biggest rounds of applause during his State of the Union address Tuesday night when he noted that Congress now has a record-high number of elected women, but it wasn’t lost on the crowd that when the women rose to cheer they were mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle.
“Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before,” Trump said as the women lawmakers rose to clap and celebrate. He then advised them “Don’t sit. You’re going to like this.”
“Exactly one century after the Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in the Congress than at any time before,” he said. There were 117 women elected to Congress in 2018.
Bipartisan chants of “USA! USA!” filled the chamber as both the Democrats and Republicans broke into uproarious applause. Many of the Democratic women wore white and donned pins that read “ERA YES,” in a nod to the women of the suffragette movement.
Trump called his list of priorities “the agenda of the American people” in his second State of the Union address Tuesday, which was delayed a week because of the 35-day government shutdown, which didn’t end until the previous Friday. The address was the first the president has delivered before the new Democratic majority in the House.
The president remained on-script for the duration of the 84-minute speech and touted his administration’s achievements from the past two years. He also laid out several legislative priorities going forward, including a “smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier,” an infrastructure bill and the eradication of HIV and AIDS.
Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., was glad that health care was a topic in the speech, while Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., described the speech as “terrific.”
“We haven’t gotten that right when it comes to protection our citizens with pre-existing conditions, correcting all the problems and costs associated with the ACA,” French said. “I like that he kept an emphasis on that while also tackling the prescription drug process.”
For Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., laying out these broad initiatives wasn’t enough.
“I wrote down a number of initiatives — defense spending, cancer research, transportation, infrastructure — and never heard anything of how we’re going to pay for them,” he said.
The president also pushed his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and to reduce drastically the number of troops in Afghanistan.
Among Democrats, reactions were mixed as Trump highlighted his achievements. When Trump lauded the U.S. increase in gas and oil production, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who has championed a Green New Deal to address accelerating climate change, remained seated.
Many Democrats applauded Trump’s push for a new infrastructure bill and decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who sat behind Trump with Vice President Mike Pence, was clearly following a printed version of the speech. She applauded when Trump mentioned criminal justice reform and bipartisan efforts on lowering drug costs and furthering women’s rights.
After praising a recent bipartisan effort to secure criminal justice reform, Trump shifted to a project he said would require the same bipartisan effort: a southern border wall.
“Simply put, walls work and walls save lives,” he said. “So let’s work together, compromise and reach a deal that will truly make America safe.”
However, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was not encouraged by the president’s attempt to strike a bipartisan tone.
“I just don’t think he is to be trusted,” she said. “This is not a president who is working for the middle class of this country.”
Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said that while parts of Trump’s speech were good, he was too combative at times.
“There should have been more emphasis on the fact that the government was shut down and we all need to work together to bring it back,” he said. “Blaming the Democrats is not going to keep the government open.”
Freshmen members of Congress excited, disappointed at their first State of the Union address
WASHINGTON — Before attending his first State of the Union address, Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, D-N.J., felt a sense of excitement and joy, but also feared the president might once again fan partisan flames by rehashing controversial issues.
“I hope that right now, he doesn’t talk about closing the government again. I hope he doesn’t talk right now about declaring a national emergency. I would so much rather see that we try to work together and get something done. That requires flexibility on Democrats side as well. Both sides have to do this,” said Van Drew.
Partisanship is the reason the approval rating for Congress is so low, but issues like border security, and infrastructure deserve cooperation between the two parties, said Van Drew.
“Rather than just argue and disagree and investigative and be hurtful on both sides, maybe we can actually get something get done.”
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Chris Pappas, D-N.H.
Although having been full-fledged members of Congress for a little over a month, the freshmen class of senators and representatives still retains a “sense of awe” about the State of the Union address, said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. Pappas said he hoped Trump would strike a conciliatory tone with Democrats, allowing lawmakers to avoid a second government shutdown.
Pappas brought a transgender military veteran from his home state to hear the president as a symbol of his hope that Trump’s transgender military service ban will be lifted.
“That doesn’t make us any safer and in fact plays politics with the military,” he said.
In addition to passing social justice reform, Pappas said he would like Trump to speak about the opioid crisis, prescription drug costs and infrastructure — and Trump did.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill.
In Illinois Rep. Sean Casten’s dreams, Trump’s State of the Union address would make climate change a priority, but said his expectations were low. Trump did not in fact mention the environment.
“Truth is what I hope he doesn’t say is what I fear he will say,” Casten said, “which is that he’s going to threaten to shut down the government again if he doesn’t get a wall.”
Casten’s guest was Julie Caribeaux, the executive director of Family Shelter Service, which receives federal aid and provides support for victims of domestic abuse. He said domestic violence victims are some of the “primary victims” of Trump’s rhetoric.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y.
Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-NY, was hoping for a message of bipartisanship and unity, things that “the American people are calling for.” Trump did call on Congress to act together on many issues.
Brindisi’s top priorities this year are trying to find common ground with the Republicans on immigration reform, infrastructure and lowering prescription drug costs. On infrastructure, he said he specifically wanted to hear Trump’s ideas on investing in job training programs. Trump mentioned all the issues, but with little specificity except that he wants a border wall and enforcement to stop what he called “caravans of migrants” heading to the southern border.
“Those are things that I talked about during the campaign that many people back in upstate New York are calling for and those are things I hope he does say,” Brindisi said.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev.
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., said she gets excited every time she walks onto the House floor, and Tuesday was no exception. Although there were parts of the speech she did not agree with, namely Trump’s insistence on a border wall, Lee said she appreciated the call for bipartisanship.
Lowering prescription drug prices, investing in infrastructure and a comprehensive border control strategy — these are all components of his speech Lee said she could agree with.
“These are all ideas I can get behind and they work together to produce some results for American families,” she said.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Deb Halaand, D-N.M.
Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., said she was dismayed about Trump’s urgency regarding funding for a border wall.
“I wasn’t surprised. Let’s put it that way about the president’s speech. I mean, of course, we don’t want a wall,” said Halland. “He instilled fear and everybody about the danger, you know, the danger that’s coming across the border.”
Haaland hopes to focus on promoting awareness about climate change and wished the President would be more receptive to the diverse issues and people around the country.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., said he enjoyed his first State of the Union in a historical sense, but wanted President Trump to address issues he feels are important, including raising the minimum wage and healthcare.
Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Ill.
He said while the president did mention lowering prescription drug costs, there was another area of healthcare that was not noted, such as the millions who do not have healthcare at all.
“He wrapped himself around a lot of patriotism and recognition of your courageous battles and victories and but in the end, I think he failed to address important things more,” Garcia said.
Post-SOTU Interviews with Illinois Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowski and Cheri Bustos
Our Alex Lederman sat down with Illinois Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowski and Cheri Bustos after the State of the Union to hear their thoughts on President Obama’s address.
Schakowski — Evanston’s congresswoman since 1999 — said “(Obama)’s vision of what makes our country strong was so human and so true.”
Bustos said Obama is focused on the future — our children and grandchildren — and working together to solve the nation’s problems.
Medill’s State of the Union night on social media
Medill on the Hill produces live State of the Union broadcast
WASHINGTON — It was the third day of reporting for the 21 students in Medill on the Hill. It also happened to be the day the president would deliver his final State of the Union address.
Months ago, buoyed by the excitement of the possibilities and the folly of youth, some of us came up with the idea of taking Medill on the Hill to a new level — producing live TV while also finding new ways of storytelling for the website and social media.
On State of the Union night, Jan. 12, the Washington web team led by Alex Duner and Celena Chong managed the flow of copy and constant web updates streaming in from reporters around Capitol Hill and elsewhere in D.C. There also was a constant stream of @medillonthehill tweets and snapchats as well as several Periscopes.
Tyler Kendall, Allyson Chiu and Shane McKeon were responsible for the main story, and Chiu said the experience was, “the highlight” of her journalism career.
“It was hectic, crazy and we were definitely all running on adrenaline by the end of the night,” she said.
Other reporters were assigned to stories on specific issues the president mentioned, or how local college students reacted to the speech. One even tweeted the speech in Spanish.
My task was to produce the Washington end of a live television broadcast.
Nine months ago Jesse Kirsch came back from 2015 Medill on the Hill with an idea for Carlin McCarthy, another producer with the Northwestern News Network, and me.
He said, with the optimism of a television anchor, that for the 2016 State of the Union we should produce a live broadcast with analysts at our home studio in Evanston and reporters in our D.C. bureau and on Capitol Hill. I said, with the skepticism of a television producer, that I thought he was crazy.
It took long nights, patience and a lot of support from the Medill faculty and staff, but we pulled it off.
Jesse opened the show in Evanston and before we knew it Isabella Gutierrez was doing a live hit from the Washington bureau. Then we were live in Statuary Hall with Noah Fromson, followed by a live report from graduate student Ryan Holmes on what to watch for just minutes before we streamed the live feed of President Barack Obama addressing a joint session of Congress for his final State of the Union.
We did a live interviews with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, wrote scripts while we counted down the seconds until they were read and gathered quotes from senators and members of Congress. Alex Lederman also provided quick-turn video interviews with two congresswomen.
Associate Producer Geordan Tilley, who interviewed Durbin, was nervous before the show, but she said she is proud of the Medill effort.
“I thought the show was some of our best work, Tilley said. “Especially considering how many firsts were involved, not the least of which was our first time going live.”
Medill Today | Thursday, October 1, 2026
Senate wrestles with AI attacks, holding tech giants accountable
by Summer Hu | October 1, 2026 | Business, Featured | 0 Comments
Senators questioned a panel of experts on the AI’s current capabilities and potential regulation.
Senate Democrats block bill limiting lawmaker stock trading
by Maya Heyman | September 30, 2026 | Featured, Politics | 0 Comments
Republicans were seven votes short of advancing the Stop Insider Trading Act.
Senate fails to advance data center ratepayer bill amid clash over ‘toothless’ protections
by Sophia Bateman | September 30, 2026 | Business, Featured | 0 Comments
The measure would have required states to consider making data centers pay for the new power infrastructure they need, though states would not have been required to adopt the protections.
Patent director decreases backlog, urges action on expiring funding authority
by Grace Wu | September 30, 2026 | Business, Featured | 0 Comments
Senators question filing quality, artificial intelligence oversight and patent abuse during a Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday
D.C. Circuit likely to allow continued inquiry of 2025 deportations to Salvadoran mega-prison
by Siddarth Sivaraman and Sai Trivedi | September 30, 2026 | Featured, Immigration | 0 Comments
Multiple judges expressed support for letting Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dig deeper into whether President Donald Trump’s administration officials disobeyed a court order.