Photo courtesy of Mendenhall River Community School
NOTN- Students and staff at Mendenhall River Community School were relocated to Thunder Mountain Middle school today out of an abundance of caution after engineers raised concerns about the snow load on the roof in the gymnasium, according to a statement released by Juneau School District.
According to the statement, engineers conducted a walk-through inspection of the school and initially cleared the building for occupancy. However, during a second inspection the recommendation was made to relocate students and staff to TMMS.
District officials said all students and staff are safe.
Students were transported by school bus with their classes and teachers to TMMS, where families can pick them up after 1 p.m.
The Department of Homeland Security in September 2025 said that 2 million undocumented immigrants had been forced out of the United States since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidency.
This form of targeting has disproportionately affected Latino communities, which represent 9 in 10 ICE arrests, according to a UCLA study published in October.
Targeting immigrants is a centuries-old American practice. In particular, Asian Americans have drawn parallels between the attacks on Latinos today and the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Notably, the passage of the War Brides Act, passed just three months after the end of WWII, in December 1945, broke with the nation’s centuries-long practice of exclusionary immigration policy. The act allowed American servicemen to bring their non-American spouses and children to the United States. The measure seemed to inaugurate a new era of inclusive immigration policy.
As a feminist studies scholar and author, I know the War Brides Act forever altered the nation’s racial demographics, increasing both Asian migration to the U.S. and the birth of biracial children.
On the 80th anniversary of the War Brides Act, I’ve also noticed an alarming contradiction: Although America may be more multiracial than ever before, the U.S. immigration system remains as exclusive as it has ever been.
Following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing the forced removal of anyone deemed to be a national security threat. Anyone, that is, who was Japanese. From 1942 to 1945, the U.S. government incarcerated approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps.
Amid the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants, it’s worth recalling the exclusionary origins of U.S. immigration policy.
The first restrictive immigration law in the U.S., the Page Act of 1875, barred Chinese women from entering the country. The assumption the law was based on was that all Chinese women were immoral and worked in the sex trade.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conduct operations in a predominantly Mexican American community in Chicago on Nov. 8, 2025. Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images
The Page Act laid the groundwork for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned all Chinese immigration into the U.S. for 10 years. This was the first federal law to ban an entire ethnic group, launching an era of legalized and targeted exclusion.
With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, the U.S. created its first border control service, which enforced new immigration restrictions. It also implemented a quota system, which banned or limited the number of immigrants from specific regions, including Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe.
The act stemmed from nativism – the policy that protects the interests of native-born residents against those of immigrants – and a desire to preserve American homogeneity.
The 1945 War Brides Act largely diverged from these previous measures, helping to dismantle the Asian exclusion made commonplace in the 19th and early 20th centuries. From 1945 until 1948, when the War Brides Act expired, more than 300,000 people entered the country as nonquota immigrants, people from countries not subject to federal immigration restrictions.
Exclusionary tendencies
Decades later, in 1965, the U.S. formally abolished the quota system. America opened its doors to those who President Lyndon B. Johnson deemed most able to contribute to the nation’s growth, particularly skilled professionals.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 eliminated racial exclusion. As a result, the U.S. population diversified. Immigrants deepened the multiracialism initiated by the War Brides Act.
Multiracialism further increased after the Vietnam War. Subsequent legislation such as the 1987 Amerasian Homecoming Act facilitated the entry of biracial children born in Vietnam and fathered by a U.S. citizen.
By the 1960s, however, exclusion was taking on a different shape.
After 1965, immigration policy initiated a preference system that prioritized skilled workers and relatives of U.S. citizens. Quotas related to race and national origin were abolished. Nonetheless, preferences for families and professionals excluded people from Latin America.
For the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited. This directly affected migrant workers in the farming and agricultural industries, many of whom were Latino.
Recalling the War Brides Act allows Americans to better comprehend the fiction that undergirds the U.S. immigration system: that immigration policy’s preference for certain immigrants is enough to justify the discriminatory policies which deem some families more valuable than others.
Anna Storti has received funding from the Institute for Citizens and Scholars, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the McNair Scholars Program.
The former reality star recently shared an update on Instagram about the health condition she suffered from nearly a year ago — but people are still worried.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
Republicans want a big Supreme Court redistricting win. They’re losing hope it will help them in the 2026 midterms.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais could weaken the Voting Rights Act and open the door to redrawing congressional maps, particularly across the South. Court watchers expect at least a partial win for conservatives that could let the GOP draw more seats for themselves by erasing Black- and Hispanic-majority districts.
But while that decision could theoretically come as soon as when the court returns on Friday, many experts think the case is more likely to be resolved with the flurry of decisions the court typically releases in late June.
The window of opportunity for new maps going into place before this November’s elections is rapidly closing, as states would need ample time to change deadlines, shift election calendars, vet signatures and print and distribute ballots. And the longer it takes for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling, the harder it will be for state-level Republicans to throw their maps out and draw new ones before this fall’s elections.
“It can get very complicated and very sticky, and that is not fast work,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief programs officer for The Election Center, a nonpartisan consulting firm that works with state and local election officials. “That is time-consuming, very methodical and detail-oriented work that needs to have sufficient time.”
Some state-level Republicans have already given up hope. In Louisiana, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, some state officials believe it’s already too late and that the state will have to use its current map in its 2026 elections regardless of the Court’s decision, as the candidate qualifying period opens next month. Louisiana Republicans pushed back its 2026 primary election dates from April to May during a special session late last year, in hopes the Court would rule by the end of 2025 and give them time to install a new map. But the shift still wouldn’t be late enough for a late-term SCOTUS ruling.
Some national Republicans, however, say there’s plenty of time to take on a redraw before November, arguing the Legislature can move the deadlines in order to redraw before elections are underway.
At the center of the Supreme Court case is Section 2 of the VRA, a provision that broadly outlaws discrimination in elections on the basis of race and has led to the creation of majority-minority districts, where Black, Latino or Asian voters make up a majority of the population.
Republicans have long argued such districts violate the Constitution and benefit Democrats. Democrats warn that the elimination of seats drawn to satisfy Section 2 could decimate minority representation in Congress and allow lawmakers to redraw lines in such a way to eliminate as many as 19 Democrat-held, majority-minority districts, many in the South.
Democrats in Blue states could also take advantage of a Section 2 change and redraw, but the party’s options are more limited, both because of geographic limitations and pressure from civil rights and minority groups.
But even as many legal experts expect the court to rule in a way that weakens the VRA, the case’s prominence has led many watchers to predict an end of term ruling in June. At that point, many states across the country will have already held primary contests and there will be no room to undertake redistricting.
“If it’s in any way a big deal, we’re not going to get that decision before June,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Law School who worked in the Biden White House as an adviser on democracy and voting rights. “It’s really hard for me to see a decision that does anything significant that wouldn’t occasion a major dissent, and it’s really hard for me to see that dissent not taking a fairly long time in the back-and-forth.”
Many southern states where Republicans stand the most to gain have early primaries — seven of the 11 states that belonged to the Confederacy have primaries scheduled before or on May 19 — making the timing even tougher for the GOP.
That doesn’t mean that lawmakers are done gerrymandering before the 2026 election.
At least three southern states — Florida, Kentucky and Virginia — are eyeing redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms, and lawmakers seem emboldened to attempt it with or without a Supreme Court ruling. In Florida, state House Republicans hope to tackle the issue during the legislative session that started this month, while Gov. Ron DeSantis called a special session in late April, in an effort to wait as “long as feasible” for a Supreme Court decision. And in Kentucky, some Republican lawmakers are weighing a redraw, even though the map would likely be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear.
But other southern states reliant on a weakened VRA to redraw, like South Carolina and Alabama, may be out of luck. Republicans in the Palmetto State — including Rep. Ralph Norman, who is running for governor — are pushing the legislature to draw out the state’s lone Democrat, Rep. Jim Clyburn. But the state’s candidate filing deadline looms in late March.
Pushing back the filing deadline further in hopes for a Supreme Court decision would scramble the primary calendar and put elections officials in a bind.
“Anytime a state decides to redistrict, it creates a domino effect of administrative issues that need to be addressed,” said David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Election officials and voters are able to manage that when it’s once every 10 years. When it becomes once every two years, it might get very, very difficult for that to be managed.”
Utah got a taste of the challenge of shuffling deadlines late last year after a district judge installed a new congressional map in November. The state’s top election official, Republican Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, immediately announced her office would move forward with the new map, even as Republican lawmakers fumed and vowed to fight it. “There will likely be an emergency appeal,” she noted on X, “but the process of finalizing new boundary details will take weeks of meticulous work on the part of state and county officials.”
The state’s Republican-controlled legislature went forward with an appeal — which is unrelated to the VRA — after it pushed back the candidate filing deadline by two months for congressional hopefuls during a special session last month, offering itself a window for potential judicial action. Should the legislature — which meets for its scheduled session this month — again adjust the electoral calendar, it would send elections officials statewide into a scramble.
“The questions we would be asking are, you know, how much time do we have to program our ballot? What are the new dates? What would we communicate with voters?” said Nikila Venugopal, the Salt Lake County chief deputy clerk. “We haven’t heard any plans to do so at this point, and we’re moving forward with the assumption that the elections will be held as planned.”
The tundra surrounding Bethel, Alaska turns red and gold in the fall. October 10, 2023. (Photo by Claire Stremple/Alaska Beacon)
A national support line for Native survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault has begun work to launch an Alaska-specific service.
Strong Hearts Native Helpline is a Native-led nonprofit that offers 24-hour, seven-day-a-week support for anonymous and confidential calls from people who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault.
The line is staffed by Native advocates, but Strong Hearts Deputy Executive Officer Rachel Carr-Shunk said there are not yet any Alaska Native people answering phone calls.
That is set to change soon.
“Even though we’re a Native organization and all of our advocates are American Indian, we do recognize that there is a difference for our Alaska Native relatives who experience violence in that context, whether they live in a rural village or they just live in Alaska, which is a different experience,” she said.
Carr-Shunk expects the organization to launch the Alaska-specific line within the next calendar year, after building partnerships in the state.
“When Alaska Native survivors reach out, we want them to trust that they’re going to have someone who understands their experience as an Alaska Native person, or who understands that identity,” she said.
To that end, the organization has hired Anchorage-based Minnie Sneddy, who is originally from Hooper Bay. Sneddy is tasked with explaining Alaska’s regional differences and specific needs to the organization, as well as helping create a database of Alaska resources.
Sneddy has years of experience in behavioral health work and said that her career and life experience have shown her the lack of resources for people who face domestic violence and sexual assault — and how many of those people need mental health support.
“The years I lived in Hooper Bay, and here in Anchorage and Alaska, there’s so many (people) that need help and want help, but they feel like if they do come forward and get help, they get in trouble — not only with their families, but with OCS, Office of Children’s Services,” she said. “I feel like Strong Hearts Native Helpline can help at least allow a person to be heard, because the majority of time, people want to be heard. Everyone just wants to feel seen and be heard.”
Sneddy said she is reaching out to resources that already exist in the state, and Strong Hearts is working with the Alaska Native Women’s Resource Center to build out its state-specific service.
“We don’t have a voice, really, in the villages,” Sneddy said, adding that when abuse happens: “There’s no help for an individual. And if a woman decides to do something about it, she’s seen as a bad person.”
The Strong Hearts Native Helpline is available now for Alaskans, even though there are not yet Alaska Native advocates on the other end of the line. A full list of Alaska shelters and victim’s services providers can be found in the state directory at law.alaska.gov.
Audience watches a dance group perform at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in October 2018 at the Dena’ina Convention Center in Anchorage, Alaska. (Photo from video by Joaqlin Estus/ICT)
State demographer David Howell said on Wednesday that the state estimate isn’t expected until at least Jan. 28 due to the lack of required data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The estimate is typically published in the first full week of January by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and reflects information as of July the previous year.
While the department uses Permanent Fund Dividend data to hone its guess, it also incorporates Census data published annually. That data, normally available by the start of the year, isn’t expected until Jan. 27, Howell said. That means the state’s estimate can’t be finalized.
The estimate is a barometer of the state’s economic and social health: When the state’s economy is booming and the Lower 48’s economy is stagnant, in-migration surges. When the opposite is true, more people leave the state than arrive.
Last year’s estimate showed 741,147 residents, the highest population since 2017, in part due to an unexpected surge in the estimated number of people moving to Alaska from outside the United States.
If the new estimate is on par or above last year’s figure, it could be a sign that the state’s decade-long economic malaise is ebbing.
This year’s estimate is also expected to incorporate an increase in military residents in and near Fairbanks, which could boost the Golden Heart’s population.
In the long run, Alaska’s population is expected to drop because a lack of new arrivals has caused the state’s average age to rise.
That leads to a drop in the number of new births and a rise in the number of elderly Alaskans. By 2050, the agency expects the state’s population to drop by about 2%.
Capital Transit, submerged in pooling water, photo courtesy of CBJ
NOTN- Winter is far from over, and the next phase of Juneau’s extreme winter weather is coming in the form of an atmospheric river, which is expected to bring heavy rain to Southeast Alaska through the weekend, and this is raising concerns about flooding as rain falls on to an already deep snowpack that has clogged storm drains, flooded roads and pooled on highways and strained local infrastructure.
The system is forecast to arrive late tonight and persist through early Saturday morning, according to the National Weather Service Juneau.
In Juneau, forecasters are predicting the storm will begin as snow and transition to rain Friday morning, totaling roughly 1 to 4 inches.
The rain will fall on the already deep snowpack across much of the central and northern Panhandle, increasing water pooling in streets and low-lying areas where blocked storm drains prevent proper runoff, there is also increased risk of possible isolated landslides for the southern panhandle.
Governor Mike Dunleavy has verbally approved Juneau’s disaster declaration, activating the state’s public assistance program.
Under the declaration, the state is assisting Juneau with clearing snow from roofs of critical public facilities, including schools, water treatment plants and Bartlett Regional Hospital.
Crews will also help dig out storm drains and fire hydrants to reduce flooding and maintain emergency access. However, officials emphasized that the assistance does not extend to private homes or businesses.
Emergency managers said conditions will continue to be monitored closely as the storm develops and additional updates will be issued as needed.
Comedians Bill Hader and Ali Wong have reportedly called it quits after two weeks of dating.
News of the split comes courtesy of a report from People.
A source tells the outlet that the split has been “very amicable” for both parties.
US actress Ali Wong and actor Bill Hader attend the 77th Annual DGA Awards (Directors Guild of America) at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, California, February 8, 2025. (Photo by VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images)
Hader and Wong split due to busy schedules, insider explains
“They are very much friends and still in touch,” says the insider.
Neither Hader nor Wong has spoken publicly about the alleged breakup.
The insider explained that the couple’s busy schedules — both are single parents with thriving careers — simply made their situation unsustainable.
“It was too difficult to make the relationship work with Ali’s upcoming stand up tour and Bill’s various film and tv projects this year,” said the insider source, adding:
Bill Hader and Ali Wong attend the 77th Annual Directors Guild of America Awards at The Beverly Hilton on February 08, 2025 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images)
“They’re focusing on their work and kids, while continuing to support and root for each other.”
They got back together in 2023 and remained a couple for over two years.
In her 2024 standup special Single Lady, Wong revealed that Hader got her number from a mutual friend after learning of her divorce.
He later texted that he had a crush on her “forever” and asked her to be his girlfriend.
Bill Hader and Ali Wong attend the 29th Annual Critics Choice Awards at Barker Hangar on January 14, 2024 in Santa Monica, California. (Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images)
We don’t know exactly when they broke up for the second time, but the split comes at a tumultuous time for Hader, who just attracted media attention last month.
Hader allegedly crossed paths with Rob and Michelle Reiner’s son ahead of murders
Sources claim that Nick — who had reportedly been acting erratically all night — became upset after Bill gently chided him for interrupting a private conversation.
There appears to be no connection between that incident and Hader’s split from Wong, but making tabloid headlines twice in as many months is likely an unpleasant experience for an actor who’s endevored to keep a tight lid on his personal life throughout his lengthy career.
But in an unexpected twist, he entered the courtroom without his famed attorney, Alan Jackson, and the situation forced yet another postponement.
According to a report from TMZ, Jackson has withdrawn from the case under uncertain circumstances.
Actor/Producer/Director Rob Reiner (center) and wife Michele Singer (L) and son Nick Reiner (R) attend Teen Vogue’s Back-to-School Saturday kick-off event at The Grove on August 9, 2013 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue)
Famed defense lawyer replaced by veteran public defender
The cause of his withdrawal is unclear, but for the time being, Jackson has been replaced by Kimberly Greene, a public defender with 19 years’ experience.
The judge in Nick’s case signed off on the change in representation, and for the first time since his arrest, the 32-year-old spoke in court.
“Uh, yeah I agree with that,” Nick said when asked if he agreed to a new arraignment date of February 23.
“They have the utmost trust in the legal process and will not comment further on matters related to the legal proceedings,” the Reiner family said in a statement issued today.
Honoree Rob Reiner poses with family at the 41st Annual Chaplin Award Gala at Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts on April 28, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
Nick did not enter a plea today, but he will be expected to do so when he returns to court next month.
As expected, no bail amount was set, and Nick will almost certainly remain behind bars throughout his trial.
The previous delays in his cort proceedings stemmed from the fact that Nick had been placed on suicide watch.
Director Rob Reiner (second from left) and family arrive at the premiere of “Rumor Has It” at the Grauman?s Chinese Theater on December 15, 2005 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
It’s unclear at this time if the public defender is just a temporary solution, or if Greene will continue to represent Reiner once his case goes to trial.
Jackson is one of the most celebrated defense attorneys in the country, having recently scored a not guilty verdict for Karen Read, who was charged with the murder of her police officer husband.
Jackson addressed the media moments ago, and while he did not go into detail, he stated that the circmstances of his withdrawal were beyond Nick’s control.
“Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder,” Jackson stressed to reporters (per TMZ).
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Congress has long been unable to come to an agreement on how to help constituents pay for health care.iStock/Getty Images Plus
As the bell struck midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, time ran out on Obamacare subsidies for over 24 million Americans. These subsidies, propped up through various legislative packages over the years, lowered the health insurance costs for Americans on the Obamacare exchange.
Following the expiration of these subsidies, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing for around 90% of Americans who use health insurance from the exchange. For many Americans, the new year means a choice between paying exorbitant costs or taking the risk of no health insurance at all.
But unlike other policy challenges that Congress may face in 2026, the expiration of health insurance subsidies was not unexpected.
The extension of health care subsidies was the pivotal disagreement that ultimately led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history in the fall of 2025. Democratic members, in support of extending the subsidies, faced off against the majority party in Congress: Republicans who wanted a short-term legislative fix that did not fund subsidies.
Congress has reconvened, and Democratic members – joined by four Republican members – used the best possible procedural tool at the minority party’s disposal, the discharge petition, to force congressional leaders to allow votes on an extension of Obamacare subsidies during its first week back in session. But overcoming congressional leadership is an immense challenge: Even if the House is successful, Senate Republican leadership has made clear that there is no future for the legislation in that chamber.
The challenge of passing meaningful solutions to rising health care costs is not unique to this year or to this Congress. It has been a decades-long argument among lawmakers that shows no sign of being resolved.
Why is it so hard for Congress to lower the cost of health care for the people who sent them to Washington?
Like many policy problems, partisanship is partly to blame. But the sprawling complexities of the American health care system pose a particular challenge to members of Congress. As my own research finds, the outsized power and resources of congressional leaders means that for Congress’ most intricate issues, rank-and-file members do not have the time, resources or, frankly, the interest to dedicate to meaningful problem-solving.
The failure of two health care proposals in December 2025, one from Democrats and one from Republicans, meant certain Obamacare enrollees face huge premium increases.
Government ‘dips its toe’
Americans face some of the highest health care costs in the world. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long campaigned on addressing exorbitant costs and equitable access.
Progressive politicians proposed the idea of national health insurance as early as the 1900s, but efforts were limited to women and children, and any policy successes were moderate and temporary.
Following the Great Depression and the advent of Social Security in the 1940s, Congress had warmed to the idea of the federal government providing social services. But attempts at widespread health care coverage failed to gain traction.
During the 1950s, as Americans began to expect more services from their tax dollars, formal coalitions formed in support of, and in opposition to, government-supported health care. Workers and unions, bolstered by Congress and the Supreme Court, used the power of collective bargaining to push for employee benefits such as health insurance. Doctors and medical providers, enjoying their current – and profitable – position, coordinated campaigns against national health insurance proposals.
In the private sector, employee demands and employer tax incentives led to a convoluted web of employer-based insurance programs. But for many Americans, particularly the retired and elderly and those with low-paying jobs, there remained few, if any, insurance options available.
Enter: Medicare and Medicaid
In the 1960s, under Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s vision for a “Great Society,” and with a bipartisan vote in Congress, the federal government took the greatest step forward in providing federal health assistance for Americans: Medicare and Medicaid. The programs helped with the cost of health care via federal health insurance for those who were elderly and low-income, and they ushered in a new era of federal health policy.
This was a watershed moment for policymakers. With health care coverage now under the umbrella of the federal government, domestic policymaking responsibility expanded to match. For lawmakers, this meant not only new debates but also new federal agencies, new congressional committees, new lobbying firms and new interest group coalitions.
An elderly woman shows her gratitude to President Lyndon B. Johnson for his signing of the Medicare health care bill in April 1965. Corbis via Getty Images
In the decades that followed, Congress’ responsibility for health care policy continued to expand: Coverage amounts and eligibility requirements were tweaked, programs were expanded to include prescription drugs and vaccines, health savings accounts were introduced, and more.
Yet still, the web of private and federal health insurance programs left millions of Americans uninsured. It wasn’t until 2010, under President Barack Obama, that the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare,” to close that gap. But as evident from the 2025 government shutdown, this solution was far from perfect – and quite expensive.
Why, despite centuries of attention, does health care coverage remain one of – if not the most – perplexing and challenging domestic issues that Congress faces?
Consensus becomes more difficult
Part of this is a uniquely American problem: Like many services, the American health care system is based on economic incentives, and the foundational ideal of American liberalism means the government is inclined to let capitalism thrive.
But the issue is also immensely complex, and today’s Congress does not have the resources to meet the challenge, particularly in the face of a sprawling executive branch.
Over time, as policies were adopted by the federal government, the scope of potential solutions expanded. To put it another way, as more cooks enter the policymaking kitchen, consensus became more difficult. The history of American health care is populated by private industries, powerful interest groups, federal officials and concerned citizens.
And the web of federal funding and private insurance companies across 50 states has resulted in a policy landscape that is easier to tweak, rather than whole-scale reform.
This is further stymied by the limited resources and expertise of the modern Congress. My research has shown that rank-and-file members are increasingly reliant on party leaders to take the lead on policymaking and problem-solving. Negotiating across coalitions and parties is unpleasant, and communicating policy changes on such a complex issue is difficult.
The result? Tepid policy tweaks made for partisan messaging.
And as ideological divisions on government support and personal autonomy become crystallized by the two parties in Congress, partisan policy solutions diverge even further. Collaboration becomes harder every year.
The continuing resolution passed late in 2025 funded the government only until Jan. 30, 2026, which means Congress is facing a Groundhog Day rather than a clean slate for the new year. With millions of Americans facing exploding health care costs, the question becomes who will Congress follow: party leadership or concerned constituents?
SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
