OUR PICKSThe Drone Defense Mess | Recalibrating U.S. Intelligence Strategy | The Founders Would Have Opposed ‘Nationalizing’ Elections, and more
• The El Paso No-Fly Debacle Is Just the Beginning of a Drone Defense Mess
• The U.S. Is Launching a Regulatory Assault on Drone Users
• The Founders Would Have Opposed ‘Nationalizing’ Elections
• Robot Dogs Are on Going on Patrol at the 2026 World Cup
• ‘Proportional Representation’ Could Reduce Polarization in Congress and Help More People Feel Like Their Voices Are Being Heard
• Even with Trump’s Support, Coal Power Remains Expensive – and Dangerous
• What It Means to Be a White ‘Race Traitor’
• Homeland Security Hires Labor Dept. Aide Whose Posts Raised Alarms
• Recalibrating U.S. Intelligence Strategy for an Uncertain Global Order
The El Paso No-Fly Debacle Is Just the Beginning of a Drone Defense Mess (Lily Hay Newman, Wired)
Fears over a drug cartel drone over Texas sparked a recent airspace shutdown in El Paso and New Mexico, highlighting just how tricky it can be to deploy anti-drone weapons near cities.
The U.S. Is Launching a Regulatory Assault on Drone Users (Faine Greenwood, Foreign Policy)
New restrictions try to shield ICE from being watched from above.
The Founders Would Have Opposed ‘Nationalizing’ Elections (Jeffrey Rosen, The Atlantic)
The writers of the Constitution sought an approach that balanced control between the states and the federal government.
Robot Dogs Are on Going on Patrol at the 2026 World Cup (Jorge Garay, Wired)
The Mexican city of Guadalupe, which will host portions of the 2026 World Cup, recently showed off four new robot dogs that will help provide security during matches at BBVA Stadium.
‘Proportional Representation’ Could Reduce Polarization in Congress and Help More People Feel Like Their Voices Are Being Heard (Jennifer Lynn McCoy, The Conversation)
In the face of widespread pessimism about the political fate of the United States and growing political polarization, scholars and citizens across the country are reimagining how American democracy could better serve the needs of the whole population.
In an October 2025 poll, a slight majority said that radical change is needed to make life better in America, compared to 32% who answered only small change is needed.
Reimagining a political system’s future effectively begins with the system’s foundation: how the populace chooses the people who will represent them and make collective decisions.
The U.S. Constitution mandates elected representatives in Congress to decide important questions, such as how to tax the population and spend that collective revenue. And they determine whether to go to war or to defend allies if they are invaded.
These representatives are chosen in a winner-take-all system that research shows favors those with money to spend on the race. It also feeds stark polarization, helps restrict choice to two major parties and leaves out the voices of many voters.
What would it take to make that electoral system become more responsive to citizens’ needs? How could it be fairer and more accurate in representing the entire electorate?
