Logan’s Law would create a federal public registry of violent offenders, like the sex offender registry.

Named for Logan Federico, a 22-year-old woman murdered in South Carolina by a repeat violent offender.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in the Senate and Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC7) in the House. [Senate bill, House bill]

And, yes: Sen. Graham’s bills introduced in the current Congress are still valid until the end of the year, despite his death this past weekend.

Watch my video on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube:

@abillaminuteLogan's Law would create a federal public registry of violent offenders, like the sex offender registry Named for Logan Federico, a 22-year-old woman murdered in South Carolina by a repeat violent offender Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in the Senate and Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC7) in the House And, yes: Sen. Graham’s bills introduced in the current Congress are still valid until the end of the year, despite his death this past weekend

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Subscribe now

Share

A Republican constitutional amendment proposal would end direct election of U.S. senators, by repealing the Constitution’s 17th Amendment.

Introduced by Rep. Keith Self (R-TX3) in the House. [House bill]

Watch my video on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube:

@abillaminuteA Republican constitutional amendment proposal would end direct election of U.S. senators, by repealing the Constitution's 17th Amendment Introduced by Rep. Keith Self (R-TX3) in the House

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Subscribe now

Share

The Declaration of Independence Reaffirmation Act would officially adopt the document as law *now* – which it technically *wasn’t* back in 1776.

Introduced by Rep. Matt Van Epps (R-TN7) in the House and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) in the Senate. [House bill, Senate bill]

Watch my video on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube:

@abillaminuteThe Declaration of Independence Reaffirmation Act would officially adopt the document as law *now* – which it technically *wasn’t* back in 1776 Introduced by Rep. Matt Van Epps (R-TN7) in the House and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) in the Senate

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Subscribe now

Share

The REAL Butter Act is a bipartisan bill to require lab-created synthetic butter say “lab-created” on its container or packaging.

Introduced in the House by a Republican and Democratic member of Congress: Wisconsin Republican Reps. Tony Wied (R-WI8) and Josh Riley (D-NY19).

Watch my video on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube… in which I eat a whole stick of butter:

@abillaminuteI eat a whole stick of butter while telling you about the REAL Butter Act, a bipartisan bill to require lab-created synthetic butter say “lab-created” on its container or packaging Introduced by a Republican and Democrat in the House: Rep. Tony Wied (R-WI8) and @RepRileyNY

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Subscribe now

Share

July 13 will mark the two-year anniversary of Trump’s assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – so this week I’m recording three videos about congressional bills related to the anniversary.

The Faith and Defiance Day Act would make 2024’s Trump assassination attempt anniversary on July 13 an annual federal holiday.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Introduced by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH6) in the House.

Subscribe now

Share

July 13 will mark the two-year anniversary of Trump’s assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – so this week I’m recording three videos about congressional bills related to the anniversary.

The Zero Tolerance for Political Violence Act would mandate a 25-year minimum prison sentence for attempted political assassination.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Introduced by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1) in the House.

Subscribe now

Share

July 13 will mark the two-year anniversary of Trump’s assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – so this week I’m recording three videos about congressional bills related to the anniversary.

Today: the Congressional Gold Medal FIGHT Act, which would bestow Congress’s top prize upon President Donald Trump; the Secret Service members at Butler, Pennsylvania on 7/13/24; and their local law enforcement partners.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

The acronym FIGHT in the bill’s title stands for For Inspiring Great Heroism and Tenacity.

Introduced by Rep. Clay Fuller (R-GA14) in the House.

Subscribe now

Share

This week, in honor of the New York Knicks winning the NBA Finals, I’m covering three bills in Congress about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Today: the MAMDANI Act, which could deport or denaturalize Mamdani and others, by removing or stripping citizenship from people who advocate socialism, Communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism.

Introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX21) in the House.

The acronym MAMDANI in the bill’s title stands for Measures Against Marxism’s Dangerous Adherents and Noxious Islamists.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Note: starting this week, I’m experimenting with only posting the videos, rather than “full-length” articles. If you want the articles back, please let me know in the comments!

Subscribe now

Share

This week, in honor of the New York Knicks winning the NBA Finals, I’m covering three bills in Congress about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Today: the Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act, which would ban Mamdani from arresting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits the United Nations.

Introduced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY21) in the House and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) in the Senate. [House bill, Senate bill.]

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Note: starting this week, I’m experimenting with only posting the videos, rather than “full-length” articles. If you want the articles back, please let me know in the comments!

Subscribe now

Share

This week, in honor of the New York Knicks winning the NBA Finals, I’m covering three bills in Congress about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Today: the MAMDANI Act, a bill to ban federal funds to NYC while Mamdani is mayor.

Introduced by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1), the bill’s acronym “MAMDANI” stands for stands for Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Note: starting this week, I’m experimenting with only posting the videos, rather than “full-length” articles. If you want the articles back, please let me know in the comments!

Subscribe now

Share

This week, I’m focusing on three Democratic impeachment resolutions aimed at Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., and John Roberts.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the legislation does

In December 2025, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI13) introduced two articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth:

1. “Murder and conspiracy to murder.” The Washington Post reported that after a military strike on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean, Hegseth ordered his subordinates to “kill them all” – even those who live visual feeds indicated were still alive after the original strikes.

2. “Reckless and unlawful mishandling of classified information,” after The Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to a military planning discussion on the encrypted messaging app Signal.

In April 2026, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ3) introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth:

1. “Unauthorized war against Iran and reckless endangerment of U.S. servicemembers.” Congress never officially authorized the war in Iran, as they’re ostensibly supposed to – although Congress hasn’t officially authorized any of military conflicts since the 1940s.

2. “Violations of the law of armed conflict and targeting of civilians.” (This is essentially the same as one of the counts in the prior impeachment.)

3. “Negligence and reckless handling of sensitive military information.” (This is also essentially the same as one of the counts in the prior impeachment.)

4. “Obstruction of congressional oversight.”

5. “Abuse of power and politicization of the Armed Forces.”

6. “Conduct bringing disrepute upon the United States and its Armed Forces.”

Context

Hegseth, formerly an Army National Guard member who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, later became a right-wing Fox News commentator and author. After President Donald Trump nominated him as Defense Secretary, the Senate tied 50-50 on his confirmation vote. Vice President J.D. Vance broke the tie in favor.

No Democrats voted for Hegseth, but three Republicans voted against: Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Supporters cite Hegseth’s role in effectively taking out the dictatorial leadership of Venezuela and Iran. They also note that U.S. military recruitment has increased under his watch, after reaching modern lows under the Biden administration.

Opponents cite no shortage of controversies, including banning transgender service members, renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War, removing many religions including Mormonism from the department’s list of officially-recognized faiths, and officially absolving U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee massacre of Native Americans – an event which many consider an illegal war crime.

What supporters say

Impeachment supporters argue that Hegseth’s words and actions are unbecoming of his office.

“Hegseth broke his oath to the Constitution, put U.S. troops at grave risk through the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, engaged in abuse of office and conduct beneath the dignity of his office, and carried out unlawful military actions despite his obligation to refuse — including strikes on civilians and a girls’ school in Minab, Iran,” Rep. Ansari said in a press release.

“Hegseth’s conduct meets the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors and warrants immediate removal by Congress,” Rep. Ansari continued. “As the daughter of Iranian immigrants and as someone who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, I know this absolutely cannot continue.”

What opponents say

Impeachment opponents counter that Hegseth is providing necessary reforms to the military, defense, and national security.

Hegseth is doing a “great job” and restoring the military’s “warrior ethos,” Vance said in an April statement.

“I will lead the breach. I will lay down cover fire. I will take the high ground. I’ll expose myself to enemy fire to communicate. We must bring back integrity, focus, and put the Warfighter first inside DOD,” then-Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), now the Secretary of Homeland Security, wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “I stand with [Hegseth].”

Has this ever happened before?

The House has impeached two Cabinet secretaries in American history.

First was Hegseth’s predecessor circa 1876, Secretary of War William W. Belknap, on charges of bribery. The House voted unanimously to impeach. While the Senate majority-voted to convict and remove him from office on all five counts, all five votes fell short of the two-thirds margin required. Since Belknap had already resigned, some senators voted against conviction as protest against the vote’s symbolic nature.

Second was Alejandro Mayorkas, President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security, in 2024. While the Republican-led House voted to impeach him for failing to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, Democratic-led Senate leadership dismissed the charges entirely – no Senate vote was held at all.

What happens next

Rep. Thanedar’s December 2025 impeachment push has attracted one cosponsor, a fellow Democrat: Rep. Al Green (D-TX9).

Rep. Ansari’s April 2026 impeachment push has attracted a larger 16 cosponsors, all Democrats.

Both resolutions have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Impeachment requires a House majority vote, followed by a two-thirds Senate vote for actual removal from office.

Subscribe now

Share

This week, I’m focusing on three Democratic impeachment resolutions aimed at John Roberts, RFK Jr., and Pete Hegseth.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the legislation does

On May 21, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN9) introduced six articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts:

1. “Politicization of the Court”

2. “Violation of oaths” and “Entrenchment of minority rule”

3. “Empowering the rich over the poor”

4. “Unaccountable executive branch.” This references Roberts’ decision in 2024’s Trump v. United States, in which the right-wing majority ruled that a president cannot be held legally liable for so-called “official acts” taken while in office.

5. “Arbitrary decisions.” This references the widespread use of the so-called shadow docket during Roberts’ tenure, in which cases are decided without oral argument or full-length written decisions.

6. “Failure to recuse,” in cases potentially involving his wife Jane’s job as a legal recruiter.

Context

Roberts has served on the Court since 2005, but this appears to be the first-ever attempt to impeach him.

After President George W. Bush nominated Roberts, the Senate confirmed him by a decently wide margin: 78 to 22. For comparison, Bush’s next nominee only a few months later, Samuel Alito, was confirmed by a considerably narrower 58 to 42.

Two future Democratic presidents and a future Democratic presidential nominee all voted against Roberts: then-Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Over Roberts’ 21 years on the Court, he’s come to be considered “an occasional swing vote,” though still leaning to the right overall.

He voted with the right-wing majority in overturning Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, in ending corporate spending limits in elections, in abolishing affirmative action at public universities, and establishing gun ownership as an individual right under the Second Amendment.

(He also voted with the court’s right wing against establishing same-sex marriage nationwide, although his side lost that case.)

However, he also joined the Court’s liberals in upholding the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare as constitutional, and striking down the Trump administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

Most recently, Roberts joined the right-wing majority in deciding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not mandate the creation of “majority-minority” voting districts. The decision was widely seen as benefitting Republicans, who no longer have to sculpt out Democratic-leaning districts, particularly in southern states.

Outside of his actual legal decisions, Roberts has caused controversy for refusing to adopt the same code of ethics under which lower court judges must abide. (In 2023, after a series of scandals, the Supreme Court voluntarily adopted a code of conduct, though some legal experts called it “more loophole than law.”)

What supporters say

Impeachment’s supporters argue that they didn’t have it out for Roberts in the first place, but now it’s finally come to this.

“For years, I defended this Court, particularly Chief Justice Roberts,” Rep. Cohen said in House floor remarks. “I thought that, despite the outrageous conduct of Justices like Alito and Thomas…, the Chief Justice really wanted to preserve the Court as an institution. I thought he would be the one to stand up for the Court.”

“The past several years have shown he is incapable of doing that or didn’t want to.”

What opponents say

Roberts himself has not publicly commented on the impeachment articles, but in 2025, he advised against impeaching any judicial official.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a March 2025 statement, after President Donald Trump publicly advocated impeaching several lower-court judges who had ruled against his administration. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Roberts supporters might say that this impeachment effort’s entirely Democratic cosponsorship similarly indicates its truer purpose: disagreeing with Roberts’ decisions on the Court.

What happens next

Rep. Cohen’s impeachment resolution has not yet attracted a single cosponsor, not even a fellow Democrat.

It’s been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Impeachment requires a House majority vote, followed by a two-thirds Senate vote for actual removal from office.

Has this ever happened before?

The House has only ever impeached one Supreme Court justice: Samuel Chase in 1804.

Before 1911, Supreme Court justices used to “ride circuit,” sitting in on cases for lower courts. Chase, nominated by President George Washington, was accused of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and excluding witnesses for the defense in some of these lower-court cases.

The Senate actually majority-voted to expel Chase from his position on three of the eight counts he faced, but that still fell short of the two-thirds margin necessary for removal.

Subscribe now

Share

This week, I’m focusing on three Democratic impeachment resolutions aimed at RFK Jr., Pete Hegseth, and John Roberts.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the legislation does

In December 2025, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI11) introduced articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr..

The charges range from the more “qualitative,” like his espousal of vaccine skepticism, to the legalistic – including charges of withholding congressionally-mandated funding of family planning programs, disallowing public comments on some his department’s proposed measures, and unilaterally greenlighting certain medicines and drugs without getting all the required government approvals.

Context

RFK Jr., son of 1960s-era U.S. Sen. and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, originally challenged President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, running in many ways to Biden’s left. After a few months, he switched to an independent bid.

Polling around 5% as Election Day approached, Kennedy suspended his campaign and asked for meetings with both major-party candidates, to discuss a possible endorsement in exchange for an administration role. Republican candidate Donald Trump took the meeting, but Democratic candidate Kamala Harris did not.

Trump nominated Kennedy as Secretary of Health and Human Services, though he proved controversial particularly for his anti-vaccination (or at least “vaccine skeptical”) views. The Senate confirmed Kennedy by 52 to 48. No Democrat voted in favor, while one Republican voted against: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

In office, Kennedy’s controversial decisions include cancelling $500 million for research into mRNA vaccines, revamping the “food pyramid” with changes that some public health experts dispute, and supporting ending USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) which provided food and nutrition overseas. Kennedy called the agency “a sinister propagator of totalitarianism.”

While we’ll never know the road not taken, Kennedy likely would have sought an environmental role with a potential Harris administration. He spent years as an environmental lawyer and 25 years as a senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, though the NRDC now denounces him.

What supporters say

Impeachment supporters argue that, despite his job title, Kennedy’s leadership has provided less health and fewer human services.

He “has turned his back on science, on public health, and on the American people – spreading conspiracies and lies… and putting lives at risk,” Rep. Stevens said in a press release. “Under his watch, families are less safe and less healthy…, lifesaving research has been gutted, and vaccines have been restricted.”

“His actions are reckless, his leadership is harmful, and his tenure has become a direct threat to our nation’s health and security,” Rep. Stevens continued. “Congress cannot and will not stand by while one man dismantles decades of medical progress.”

What opponents say

Impeachment opponents counter that Kennedy is making controversial but necessary reforms to a health and medical system that almost everybody, across the political spectrum, agrees is broken.

“You are a breath of fresh air,” Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX19) told Kennedy at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing in April. “We may have disagreements on how to attack some of these problems, but you have a rare curiosity and objectivity and independence that you bring to this incredibly important leadership post for our country.”

“I think the problem with all these distortions is that we have too much special interest, too much incumbent resistance, too much parochial politics. And everyone in this town seems to be captured by it to some extent or to one extent or another,” Rep. Arrington continued. “You just seem to have been able to, through the fiery furnace of public scrutiny over the years, I don’t know what it is, but I love that you can come to this.”

What happens next

The impeachment attracted one cosponsor, a fellow Democrat, but with an asterisk: former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA14) cosponsored it in December, but resigned in April after sexual assault allegations. So no current member of Congress has signed on as a cosponsor, not even any Democrats.

It’s been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Impeachment requires a House majority vote, followed by a two-thirds Senate vote for actual removal from office.

Subscribe now

Share

A 2017 survey found 21% of Americans would eat bacon every day for the rest of their lives.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the bill does

The Save Our Bacon Act is a Republican bill to effectively nullify animal welfare laws for animals like pigs raised for meat, focusing on one particular state law in California.

Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA2) introduced a House version in July 2025.

Context

In 2018, California voters approved an animal welfare measure for animals raised for meat. For example, pigs now had to have enough space to turn around in their cages; they couldn’t be staged parallel, side to side to side to side.

Known as Proposition 12, voters approved the measure by 63% to 37%.

Over the years, Republicans have tried to nullify this measure in at least three ways.

First, they went to the Supreme Court.

However, the Court upheld California’s law by 5 to 4 in the decision National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, ruling that states could establish such animal welfare standards within their own borders.

The decision didn’t break down neatly along ideological lines. Among the court’s conservatives, Barrett + Gorsuch + Thomas voted for it, while Alito + Kavanaugh + Roberts voted against. Among the court’s liberals, Kagan + Sotomayor voted for it, while Jackson voted against.

Next, Republicans tried using the White House.

In July 2025, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California over Proposition 12. However, in March 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Mark C. Scarsi dismissed the case, ruling that the federal government lacked standing to sue as it “is not the target of [California’s] challenged government action.”

(Interesting side note: Trump actually nominated Judge Scarsi, back in 2020.)

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that California’s state law has become a de facto national law, since California is the most populous state, and that they’re too expensive for small farms.

“California’s Proposition 12… [poses] a major threat to family farms and food security — both in Iowa and across the country,” Rep. Hinson said in a press release. The bill “reaffirms livestock producers’ right to sell their products across state lines, without interference from arbitrary mandates. This legislation will stop out-of-touch activists — who don’t know the first thing about farming — from dictating how Iowa farmers do their job. There will be no bacon ban on my watch.”

(To be clear, no state actually banned bacon.)

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the bill interferes with state autonomy, and that California’s law is actually not expensive or raising prices.

“This is not a case of California and other states imposing their standards on out-of-state producers,” 180+ House Democrats wrote in a letter to House Agriculture Committee leadership, “as producers in any state can choose not to supply another state’s consumers or to segregate animals for different markets.”

“Additionally, a recent empirical study by three USDA-affiliated economists found no evidence that Proposition 12 impacted pork products outside of California,” the House Democrats continued. “Using Circana retail scanner data, the study examined early price impacts on covered pork products in both California and the broader U.S. market, concluding there were none.”

What happens next

The bill has attracted 25 cosponsors, all Republicans. And yes, one of them is the aptly-named Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE2).

As a standalone measure, it’s been referred to the House Agriculture Committee, but perhaps it could be added to Congress’s annual larger farm bill. On April 30, the House passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 with the Save Our Bacon Act included as Section 12006.

The House approved the larger bill by 224 to 200. Republicans voted almost entirely in favor, by 209 to 3; the three Republican opponents were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA1), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY2), and Harriet Hageman (R-WY0). Democrats largely opposed it, by 14 to 197.

Subscribe now

Share

Sometimes, the 630-foot Saint Louis Gateway Arch just isn’t enough.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the bill does

The Arlington National Cemetery Viewshed Protection Act would prevent a planned 250-foot arch in Washington, D.C. heavily associated with President Donald Trump.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA8) – who represents the Washington, D.C. suburb of Arlington, Virginia where the planned arch would be located – introduced a House version on May 29.

Eight days earlier, the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts approved the arch on May 21, though Trump had recently stacked the commission entirely with his own appointees.

Context

The Trump administration is proposing a 250-foot-tall monument called the United States Triumphal Arch, to be built in Memorial Circle, on a bridge between Virginia’s Arlington National Cemetery and D.C.’s Lincoln Memorial.

For comparison, 250 feet would be more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial and more than 4x the height of the White House.

The project has been instigated by Trump, although the current plans wouldn’t actually depict Trump, such as with a statue of him for example. Nor would it be named after Trump, as he’s renamed several other D.C.-area buildings or institutions after himself, like renaming the Kennedy Center as the Trump Kennedy Center.

What supporters say

The legislation’s supporters argue that the president shouldn’t build what is widely perceived as a monument to himself, right next to a space honoring Americans killed in war.

“Arlington National Cemetery is sacred ground, the resting place for some of our nation’s greatest heroes. It is unthinkable that we would desecrate this hallowed space to build a monument to Donald Trump’s ego,” Rep. Beyer said in a press release. (To be clear, the arch would technically be built just outside the cemetery itself, in a traffic roundabout.)

“Trump’s vanity project would waste taxpayer money, brazenly violate existing law, and become yet another vehicle for his corruption,” Rep. Beyer continued. Specifically, he claims the project violates the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which requires congressional approval for new D.C.-area monuments or memorials.

What opponents say

The legislation’s opponents counter that the monument is visually beautiful, fulfills the centuries-old original proposal that D.C. display such an arch, and wouldn’t block any existing views.

There is a “history of heroic architecture proposed for this site in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including several arches and a pair of 166-foot-tall columns,” Thomas E. Luebke, Trump-appointed Secretary of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, wrote to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

The arch “would extend the symbolic landscape beyond the National Mall,” Luebke continued. “The city and its narrative of monuments is not static, and this project provides an opportunity for new national stories.”

What happens next

The bill has attracted 39 House cosponsors, all Democrats. It’s been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Possibly more likely: a successful lawsuit. In February, three Vietnam veterans and an architectural historian sued to block the planned arch, represented by the legal advocacy group Public Citizen.

Subscribe now

Share

Only one Republican Congress member has signed on to any of the three bills so far.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

What the legislation does

Three Democratic bills in Congress would block President Donald Trump’s so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The money could be used to pay out everyone from January 6 participants, Trump allies, family members, and maybe even Trump himself.

1. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD8) introduced the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act. This is by far the biggest of the three pieces of legislation, attracting 80 House cosponsors so far, all Democrats.

2. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) – all Democrats – introduced the Drain the Slush Fund Act.

3. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA1) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY3) introduced the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act. So far, Rep. Fitzpatrick is the only Republican to sign on to any of these three bills.

Context

In 2020, IRS employee Charles Littlejohn leaked Trump’s tax returns to reporters, notably the New York Times. Littlejohn pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. In January 2026, Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion – even though the action was taken by one rogue employee acting illegally, rather than by “the IRS” itself.

In May, Trump and the IRS reached a settlement: Trump would drop the lawsuit, in exchange for which a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would be created to pay people who Trump’s Justice Department considered victims of illegal government prosecutions – presumably under the Biden administration.

The money could potentially be awarded to January 6 participants, Trump allies like Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, Trump family members, and maybe even to Trump himself.

The pool of money would total $1.776 billion, a clear reference to the Declaration of Independence, signed in the year 1776. Although some media outlets, not wanting to give that exact dollar amount any oxygen, rounded and referred to the fund as “nearly $1.8 billion.”

The fund would also only operate through December 2028, scheduled to be the last full month of Trump’s term. So it couldn’t be used by any future president, whether Republican or Democratic.

Then the Wall Street Journal reported that more than a dozen Republican senators had privately expressed opposition about the fund to the White House. In response to controversy and backlash, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche suspended the fund.

However, President Trump himself says he “doesn’t know” if the fund is permanently ended, or just paused. About the possibility of the fund’s resurrection, Trump replied: “I love it.”

What supporters say

Obviously, Democratic supporters argue that the fund is corrupt and self-dealing. Yet even some congressional Republicans publicly spoke up against it, too.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it “utterly stupid and morally wrong.” “A fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol Police officers,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said. “How absurd does that sound coming out of my mouth?”

“Yesterday I called on the DOJ to explain where this money is coming from, who may receive it, and under what authority this fund was created. Today, we are acting,” Rep. Fitzpatrick, the only Republican cosponsor of any of the three above bills, said in a May 21 press release. “Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the fund is necessary to counteract so-called Democratic “lawfare,” or using the legal system and government to go after one’s political enemies.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Acting AG Blanche said in the press release announcing the fund. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Trump, for what it’s worth, portrayed the fund as an act of selflessness, seemingly countering claims that he himself could receive some of the funds.

“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune,” President Trump posted on Truth Social. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!

The Senate votes

The Senate voted down two attempts to attach similar policies as amendments to a larger bill funding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the Border Patrol.

One amendment would have almost entirely blocked the fund, except for payments to January 6 law enforcement, rather than January 6 participants. The amendment attracted majority support, in a 52 to 47 vote, but that fell short of the three-fifths vote required.

Six Republican senators voted in favor:

1. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

2. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

3. Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH)

4. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

5. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

6. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Another amendment would have diverted the fund’s money to fraud enforcement, but that was overwhelmingly defeated by both parties, in a 15 to 84 vote. Only 12 Republicans and three Democrats voted in favor, with opponents calling it “a slush fund by another name.”

As for the three pieces of standalone legislation, odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Congress. They’ve all been referred to the House or Senate Judiciary Committee, respectively.

Subscribe now

Share

Perhaps the alerts will read: “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

Context and what the bill does

Mountain Brook, Alabama teenager Lulu Gribbin was attacked by a shark in June 2024, while swimming off the coast of Rosemary Beach, Florida. Gribbin survived, but lost her left hand and part of her right leg.

About an hour and a half earlier, but only a few miles away, another person was attacked by a shark and suffered severe injuries. If the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) had provided an emergency alert – as they do for events like tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis – perhaps Gribbin’s attack could have been avoided.

So an Alabama representative and senator from Gribbin’s home state introduced Lulu’s Law, allowing exactly that. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL6) introduced the House version in March 2025, then Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced the Senate version the next day.

To be clear: the alerts would be geographically targeted. So even though this is now poised to become a national law, it’s not like all 300+ million people across the U.S.A. would all be alerted if there was a shark attack in one specific region.

What supporters say

Supporters argue the legislation would save lives.

“Lulu’s tremendous strength, faith, and bravery throughout her healing journey has inspired many,” Rep. Palmer said in a press release. “By passing Lulu’s Law, we would be creating a practical solution to prevent future attacks from occurring and keeping beachgoers safe.”

“Lulu’s Law would empower authorities to quickly and accurately put information in the hands of beachgoers to help keep them out of harm’s way,” Sen. Britt said in a separate press release. “This is a commonsense measure aimed at keeping families safe – a cause that I know people can rally around, just like her local community, our great state, and the entire nation have rallied around Lulu.”

What happens next

Rep. Palmer and Sen. Britt previously introduced the legislation in the House and the Senate in 2024, during the prior Congress, but it never received a committee vote.

This time around, momentum picked up. The Senate passed it in July 2025 by unanimous consent. In addition to its Republican lead sponsor, the Senate version attracted nine bipartisan cosponsors: five Republicans and four Democrats.

About 10 months later, in May 2026, the House passed it by a 401 to 6 vote. All six opponents were Republicans considered to be on the right wing of the party:

1. Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX27)

2. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA9)

3. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH8)

4. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL6)

5. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD1)

6. Rep. Keith Self (TX)

As of this writing, the bill has been sent to President Donald Trump, who seems likely to sign it into law. (At least he hasn’t publicly expressed opposition.)

Fun fact: Lulu Gribbin herself was at the U.S. Capitol Building in-person to watch her namesake law pass.

Gribbin and her family started the Lulu Strong Foundation, raising money for prosthetics for amputees.

Subscribe now

Share

“‘Til death do us part,” but what about if you share the same grandparents?

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The Consanguineous Marriage Prohibition Act would ban marriages between first cousins, nationwide. (The word “consanguineous” in the bill’s title means related by blood.)

Rep. Keith Self (R-TX3) introduced a House version of the bill on April 30.

Context

Around 16 states currently allow marriage between first- cousins. These states span the political spectrum: from red states like Alabama + Florida + South Carolina, to blue states like California + Hawaii + Massachusetts.

1. Alabama

2. Alaska

3. California

4. Colorado

5. Florida

6. Georgia

7. Hawaii

8. Maryland

9. Massachusetts

10. New Jersey

11. New Mexico

12. New York

13. South Carolina

14. Vermont

15. Virginia

16. Washington, D.C.

What supporters say

The congressional bill’s supporters argue that cousin marriage doesn’t fit U.S. ethics and norms.

“Cousin marriage… is fundamentally incompatible with American culture and values. It should not be allowed anywhere in our country,” Rep. Self said in a press release. “The vast majority of states have already banned this third-world practice. It’s time for Congress to finish the job and enact a nationwide prohibition.”

What opponents say

Hardly anybody is willing to publicly support first-cousin marriage, but opponents may argue that a ban on cousin marriage would be unconstitutional. After all, 11 years ago, the Supreme Court declared a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

“Cousin bans are unconstitutional, discriminatory holdovers from a dark period in American history, and first cousins’ right to marry [should] be taken up as the next battle in the fight for family law equality,” Rachel Frommer of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School wrote in the Cardozo Law Review.

What happens next

The bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, a Republican: Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-SC3).

It’s been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Republicans control the chamber, but odds of passage are unclear.

State-level action may be more likely. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently calling for his state legislature to ban first-cousin marriage.

Subscribe now

Share

As the modified lyrics of Take Me Out to the Ballgame might go: “It’s root, root, root, for the home team / If they would move, it’s a shame.”

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The Home Team Act would ban a pro sports team from moving without giving the local community a chance to purchase the team for a year first.

The legislation specifies at least three options for how “the community” could buy a team:

1. A wealthy private individual who lives in the community or company that operates there.

2. A community cooperative or nonprofit. The model here would be the NFL’s Green Bay Packers, the only such pro sports team in the U.S owned not by an individual or a company, but rather by 537,000 individual shareholders, like a company stock.

3. A local or state government itself buying the team. There’s really no precedent for that in the U.S., though governments do own sports teams in some other nations, particularly with soccer teams.

The penalty for noncompliance would be $30,000 fine per day.

The House version was introduced by Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX35) on March 26, then the Senate version was introduced that same day by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Context

Pro sports teams move with some frequency. In the 21st century alone, that’s included:

• NBA: The Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder in 2008, the Charlotte Hornets became the New Orleans Pelicans, and the Vancouver Grizzlies became the Memphis Grizzlies in 2001.

• NFL: The Oakland Raiders moved to Las Vegas in 2020, the St. Louis Rams moved to Los Angeles in 2016, as did the San Diego Chargers in 2017.

• MLB: The Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals in 2005, and the Oakland Athletics (A’s) will move to Las Vegas in 2028.

• NHL: The Atlanta Thrashers became the Winnipeg Jets in 2011, and the Arizona Coyotes became the Utah Mammoth in 2024.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the legislation would prevent pro sports owners, many of whom rank among the richest people in America, from crossing city or state lines without at least giving the original locality a chance to salvage the team.

“Sports in America should be about more than just making billionaire owners even richer,” Rep. Casar said in a press release. “Far too many Americans know the pain of losing a team, and far too many communities have had to fork over billions in subsidies just to keep an already profitable team home. Our bill is about creating a level playing field so leagues work for fans and taxpayers, not just owners.”

“The American people are sick and tired of billionaires threatening to move the sports teams they own to different states unless they get hundreds of millions in corporate welfare to build new stadiums,” Sen. Sanders said in a separate press release. “In my view, professional sports teams should be owned and controlled by the fans who love them, not by the multibillionaire oligarchs who are getting even richer by charging outrageous prices and getting taxpayers to pick up their extravagant costs.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the legislation would hamstring (mostly) blue-state teams from moving to (mostly) red-state locations. So if these legislators truly want to prevent their team from relocating, the real way to do so is through lower prices and creating a more business-friendly economy in their blue states.

“Indiana is open for business, while states like Illinois, New York, and California are collapsing under failed Democrat policies,” Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) told IndyStar about the bill. “Now they want to trap businesses and families in those failing systems.”

“Hoosiers won’t tolerate government control over who can buy or sell a business or where Americans choose to build a better life,” Gov. Braun, a former member of Congress, continued. “I ran for governor because nothing gets done in D.C., largely due to wasting time on crazy ideas like this.”

What happens next

The House version has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats. It’s been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Senate version has attracted two cosponsors, both Democrats – and both from Connecticut. That’s likely not a coincidence, as Connecticut’s only remaining pro sports team, the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun, recently announced they’ll relocate to Houston, Texas in 2027 and rename themselves the Comets.

The upper-chamber version has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Subscribe now

Share

Unusual kombucha flavors include pineapple basil, mango chili, and turmeric honey.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The KOMBUCHA Act would more than double the alcoholic threshold at which the popular beverage kombucha could be taxed or regulated as “alcohol,” from the current 0.5% to 1.25%.

The acronym KOMBUCHA stands for Keeping Our Manufacturers from Being Unfairly taxed while Championing Health Act. (And yes, that forced acronym only works if such three-letter words as ‘our’ are capitalized, while five-letter words like ‘taxed’ and ‘while’ aren’t.)

The House version was introduced on April 30 by a Democrat and Republican: Reps. Andrea Salinas (D-OR6) and Adrian Smith (R-NE3). The Senate version was introduced that same day by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Context

Kombucha is a fermented black tea or green tea beverage which contains trace amounts of alcohol, but nowhere near enough to get a person drunk.

You’d have to drink about 10 kombucha bottles to equal the alcohol of one beer. In the real world, you’ve never been to a party or bar or event where anyone was drinking kombucha to get intoxicated.

Yet under federal law, a beverage is taxed and regulated as “alcoholic” if it contains at least 0.5% alcohol by volume. And very rarely, kombucha can reach that level, since it can continue fermenting even after it’s bottled.

But kombucha usually doesn’t reach 0.5% alcohol by volume. And even on the rare occasions when it does, that’s still nowhere near enough to get anyone intoxicated. For comparison, beer is about 5% alcohol by volume. (And beer isn’t even considered “hard alcohol.”)

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the law should reflect actual consumer habits and various beverages’ actual intoxicating effects (or lack thereof). Here’s what one congressional Republican and one Democrat each had to say.

“Kombucha is an everyday beverage enjoyed for its probiotic benefits, and it shouldn’t be taxed the same as beer or other alcoholic drinks,” Rep. Smith said in a press release. The bill would “update outdated federal tax rules and ensure fair treatment for Nebraska’s small kombucha brewers.”

“A serving of kombucha contains about as much alcohol as an overripe banana, so there’s no reason to tax it like it’s a full-on alcoholic beverage,” Sen. Wyden said in a separate press release. “It’s past time to sober up our tax code and give kombucha producers a fair shake.”

(Rep. Salinas, meanwhile, wrote a pun-filled social media post calling the bill “fermentastic,” “steeped in success,” and “tea-riffic.”)

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the product is taxed like alcohol because… well, it does contain alcohol.

In 2015, Maine’s then-Gov. Paul LePage (R) vetoed a state bill to lower taxes on kombucha.

“Kombucha is a small sub-category of wine. It is alcohol under federal rules and Maine law,” Gov. LePage wrote in his veto message. “There is no defensible public policy reason why this category of alcohol should receive special treatment.”

Kevin Warren, the founder of BNF Kombucha in Eugene, Oregon, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the federal legislation would presumably make the beverage more accessible to both minors and to adults who are trying to abstain from alcohol. (Though Warren didn’t explicitly advocate against the legislation overall, noting that it had both “pros and cons.”)

Odds of passage

The legislation has been introduced several times in prior Congresses, but actually seen declining cosponsorship over time – with a particularly sharp plummet starting in 2023. It’s unclear why.

No version received a committee vote.

The current Senate version has not yet attracted any cosponsors. It’s been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

The House version has also not yet attracted any other cosponsors beyond its original one Democrat and one Republican. It’s been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subscribe now

Share