The Editors

The prospect of the federal government questioning the Catholic Church's nonprofit religious tax exemption because Pope Leo XIV participated in the American midterm elections raises an important question about the relationship between government authority, religious institutions, and individual political freedom.

Before such a controversy develops into another partisan confrontation, it is worth establishing a fundamental distinction: A religious leader exercising the right to vote is not the same as a religious institution endorsing a political candidate.

A proposal by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to build a wall along Canada’s southern border might sound, at first glance, like a straightforward response to concerns about unauthorized migration. In practice, however, such a project would be extraordinarily difficult to construct, environmentally disruptive, and unlikely to accomplish its principal objective.

Op/Ed: The decision to allow the late Senator Mitch McConnell to continue serving is a truly positive development.

Opinion - A recent controversy surrounding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) policy changes has reignited debate over how courts review immigration decisions that inevitably intersect with humanitarian concerns, foreign policy discretion, and allegations of unequal treatment. In upholding the administration’s authority to rescind TPS for certain groups while extending or redesignating protections for others, the Supreme Court’s reasoning—whatever one makes of its consequences—rested on a familiar principle in immigration law: broad deference to the executive branch.

Debates over defense spending in the United States often center on scale. A proposed $1.5 trillion budget for the Department of Defense understandably raises concern, particularly at a time when the national debt exceeds the size of the economy. Yet when viewed through the lens of long-term risk management, such a figure may be less extraordinary than it initially appears.

Opinion - The announcement of a triumphal arch in Washington, D.C., commemorating the recently declared U.S. victory over Iran has quickly become one of the most debated cultural proposals of the moment. The concept has now cleared an initial hurdle, with the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts—whose members were appointed by President Donald Trump—granting early approval on artistic grounds.

In recent weeks, speculation has swirled across social media and news networks alike about the status of President Donald Trump. The immediate cause: an evident shift in his public communication. Longtime observers note that Trump’s trademark social media presence—once spontaneous and unmistakably personal—now seems oddly polished, carefully phrased, and conclusively confirmed by independent analysts to be generated with artificial intelligence tools. Even recent video statements, which purport to show him addressing the nation, have come under scrutiny for signs of digital fabrication.

Opinion - When members of Congress shy away from calling Melania Trump to testify regarding the Epstein affair, citing her limited English as a concern, they insult both the public’s intelligence and the nation’s ideals. The United States Congress, of all institutions, should know that language is no obstacle to truth when interpreters exist for every tongue spoken under the Capitol dome.

Opinion - President Trump’s proposal to rename Presidents Day as Republican Presidents Day is a move that risks fracturing one of the few remaining symbols of civic unity in American life. Presidents Day, established to honor both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and later expanded to recognize all who have held the nation’s highest office, is meant to celebrate the continuity of American democracy—not the dominance of a single political tradition.

Op/Ed. Reports that President Donald Trump consulted Chinese and Russian leaders before launching his military operation into Venezuela have provoked the predictable political storm. Critics have seized on the news as evidence of secret coordination or foreign influence, while allies insist such outreach represents prudent statesmanship. The truth, as usual, likely lies somewhere less dramatic: these calls were probably little more than a diplomatic courtesy—conventional, even necessary, in the volatile chessboard of 21st-century geopolitics.