Name an under-the-radar idea that could pass Congress this year and have a big impact on the country.

The “what” of the federal government got unprecedented attention in 2025 with significant capacity cuts, agency reorganizations and budget battles. With less fanfare, a critical piece of the “how” broke: Despite a bipartisan legislative push and a last-ditch effort in the National Defense Authorization Act, the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) lapsed in December.

Its expiration halts a major mechanism for upgrading federal IT systems, leaving agencies managing 2026 problems with creaking, siloed and ill-fitting 1980s-era tech. In 2026, I’m watching for signs of life in the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Reform Act, which would reauthorize the TMF through 2032.

The TMF was established in 2017 as a revolving fund to help agencies upgrade their legacy IT by bypassing an inflexible annual budget cycle that’s poorly suited to modern software procurement, which has many resource peaks and valleys during various project phases.

This experiment ran into barriers — among them, the fact that agencies were required to repay the fund using eventual cost savings, which is great in theory but tough in practice for software development. But the MGT Reform Act fixes some problems. For instance, it requires a legacy IT inventory to map the biggest needs and allows agencies to justify funding through mission effectiveness or security — e.g., if a project reduces the wait time for veteran benefits from three months to three days, that public benefit could count toward the project’s value.

The MGT Reform Act is not a total cure: It doesn’t overhaul the underlying procurement laws or the paperwork requirements that slow down digital projects. And the just-released appropriations package has only $5 million for TMF if reauthorized, which is a far cry from prior infusions. Still, federal IT desperately needs to be dragged into the 21st century, and TMF reauthorization and reform would at least be a step in the right direction.

Loren DeJonge Schulman is a senior adviser for government capacity with the Federation of American Scientists.

Most members of Congress will never face a competitive general election. They know it. They govern accordingly.

But two moderate Democrats who actually win in Trump country wonder if the problem isn’t the people — it’s the system. Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden, Blue Dog Dems who won R+5 and R+6 districts, respectively, have introduced a resolution to establish a Select Committee on Electoral Reform.

The committee would study alternatives to the electoral status quo: multimember districts with proportional representation, expanding the House beyond its 1929 cap of 435 seats, and repealing the 1967 federal law that prohibits states from experimenting with proportional systems.

It has no legislative power — just a mandate to hold hearings and issue recommendations. That’s precisely why it could pass. It threatens no incumbent directly while creating the official record that makes future reform thinkable.

Americans are tired of a Congress that doesn’t work. This resolution finally asks why — and whether winner-take-all is the root of the dysfunction. (Spoiler: It is.)

Lee Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and the author of “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.”

Senators Josh Hawley and Dick Durbin have proposed a bipartisan bill that would be hugely consequential but has not received a great deal of public attention. The AI LEAD Act would create a federal product liability framework for AI systems. Liability is always the elephant in the room, or one of the bigger elephants, whenever we think about setting guardrails on AI. Liability provisions would quickly tame Big Tech companies, because AI systems would be subjected to familiar legal exposure for any harms they cause. These provisions would potentially make the job of the courts easier, because judges could make analogies to other products. Large damage suits could follow, and Big Tech companies would have to factor that into their risk calculations in a way that they do not need to today. Under the terms of the act, private individuals could sue, and even class-action suits would be possible.

Congress should consider this proposal not because the bill itself is somehow perfect — indeed, its wide-open provisions would surely lead to abuse and unintended negative consequences if it were adopted in its current, raw form — but because the U.S. needs balanced and informed debate and deliberation, and U.S. courts need legislative clarity on how to sensibly manage AI so that we can try to prevent or mitigate any harms.

Joseph Dunne is a research professor at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy.

Flooding has touched nearly every parish in Louisiana and every corner of the United States. Texas, New Mexico, Kentucky and New York all saw deadly flash flooding last year. New York City faced storms that brought “terrifying, freak flash flooding,” as the New York Post put it. We in Louisiana know well the pain flooding can cause.

There is the tragedy of the flood itself, but then there is the second tragedy of people forced to leave homes they’ve lived in for decades because once a property floods, affordable flood insurance becomes nearly impossible to secure.

Every flood is a little bit different, but the message I always emphasize is the same: Americans need stability. For millions, that stability is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The program has provided Americans with access to affordable flood insurance for the last 50 years. Right now, it is being threatened.

In addition to experiencing repeated lapses in authorization, the NFIP has become vulnerable because Congress has tied its reauthorization to government funding legislation. As a result, government shutdowns can halt the issuance and renewal of flood insurance policies overnight, leaving families exposed when they need protection most. Last year, the nation experienced the longest government shutdown in American history — 43 days — right in the middle of hurricane season.

That NFIP lapse left 500,000 Louisianans and millions more across the country in jeopardy of losing their coverage. Over the past decade, Congress has passed 34 short-term extensions. Clearly, a program that is extended so often deserves a long-term solution. I have been working for years toward long-term authorization to provide stability for millions of Americans rebuilding after a flood.

Americans’ flood protection should not depend on politicians’ ability to get their act together. That’s why I introduced legislation that would automatically maintain NFIP coverage if Congress misses a reauthorization deadline or if a government shutdown occurs, ensuring that families remain protected no matter what happens in Washington. It fixes the damage caused by the Schumer Shutdown and provides the stability millions of Americans rely on to buy, rebuild and keep their homes safe. We also need to pass a long-term extension so NFIP policyholders can rely on the program to do what it’s supposed to: provide stability.

Until this program is sustainable for future generations, Americans will continue to drop the program, leaving their homes vulnerable and the program under threat. I hope Congress can come together and pass my bill to prevent the NFIP from having future lapses. Let’s keep the National Flood Insurance Program alive — and then let’s keep it strong, reliable and worthy of the trust that millions of American families place in it every day.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy represents Louisiana in the U.S. Senate.

H.R. 6644, the Housing for the 21st Century Act, is a bipartisan bill that passed out of the House Financial Services Committee last month with broad support and is well-positioned to advance in the House and Senate, representing a meaningful first step toward addressing the housing crisis affecting communities nationwide. Led by myself, Chairman French Hill (R-AR) and ranking member Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and Chairman Mike Flood (R-NE) of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, this legislation modernizes outdated housing programs, expands opportunities for affordable housing construction, and strengthens oversight to ensure housing providers are accountable. It also opens more pathways to homeownership, including through manufactured housing and small-dollar mortgages, while maintaining strong protections for borrowers and assisting families in both rural and urban communities.

While this bipartisan bill makes meaningful reforms toward addressing the U.S. affordable housing and homelessness crisis, we also know that reforms alone are not enough. To truly solve this crisis, we must pair these policy changes with significant federal investments in housing to ensure effective and lasting outcomes for communities across America. That is why I have also reintroduced my groundbreaking bills, the Housing Crisis Response Act, the Ending Homelessness Act and the Downpayment Toward Equity Act. This is not a problem we can manage around the edges — it requires sustained, serious action.

Together, these efforts represent a comprehensive approach to housing at a time when too many families are one rent increase away from losing their homes. I look forward to continuing this work with my colleagues and moving this legislation forward. Families cannot wait. Congress must act.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, who represents California’s 43rd Congressional District, is the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

The Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act is an effort to determine if the federal government is prepared in case of an emergency.

Shocks to the economy can run up the debt, and given our current overleveraged situation, it is unclear how well we might navigate unforeseen issues.

This bill would implement “fiscal stress tests” through annual assessments of the government’s resilience to a potential emergency — economic downturns, energy crises and national security threats, for example. These tests would be conducted by the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury, and independently reviewed by the Government Accountability Office. Large banks were required to run similar tests in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Lawmakers are increasingly aware that we are on a dangerous fiscal path, but they have yet to show the willingness to end new borrowing or pass needed policy improvements. This bill avoids the tough choices involved in specifics and could thus be an appealing addition to any of the upcoming fiscal moments where we need to fund the government or lawmakers are considering yet another bill that relies on borrowing. While they will not avert a fiscal crisis, stress tests would be a helpful nudge in the right direction.

Maya MacGuineas is president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization focused on fiscal policy issues and promoting responsible budgeting in Washington.

Just before Christmas 2025, a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators, including Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin, Josh Hawley, Amy Klobuchar, Marsha Blackburn and Ashley Moody, introduced legislation to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act on January 1, 2027. If enacted, the sunset could break Big Tech’s seemingly impenetrable stranglehold on the legislative process, forcing Congress to protect kids online and secure Americans’ freedom from censorship.

Section 230, which dates to 1996, immunizes interactive computer services from being held legally responsible both for hosting user content and for blocking content that is obscene or objectionable. These immunities sought to encourage a competitive, decentralized and open internet ecosystem, while preventing the widespread proliferation of pornography on the early internet.

Nowadays, however, 230 allows Big Tech companies like Meta, Alphabet, Snap, TikTok and X to escape liability for addicting kids, exposing users to a constant deluge of dangerous, toxic and erotic content, and silencing conservative voices.

Although members of Congress have introduced numerous legislative proposals, many intended to combat Big Tech’s abuses, the tech industry has spent millions to defeat them with near perfect success.

Under 230’s sweeping immunity shield, Big Tech wins by default. Without an end to the liability gravy train, there is little incentive for industry to come to the table. Sunsetting 230 — ending one of Big Tech’s most prized subsidies — could finally break that trend. With the impending end of their 230-enabled fiefdoms, tech companies would have a strong incentive to negotiate reforms in good faith, rather than stall out every attempt to restrain their power.

A robust 230 reform package, negotiated in light of a fixed sunset, could also serve as a vehicle to enact other long-overdue tech legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly in 2024, and comprehensive data privacy legislation modeled after the American Privacy Rights Act.

In the face of a clean sunset, Congress would be forced to do its job and finally hold Big Tech accountable. With our children and the future of free speech hanging in the balance, it’s time to put Big Tech on defense.

Daniel Cochrane is a senior research associate at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Technology and the Human Person.

In December 2025, Sen. Tim Kaine reintroduced a 2024 bill to advance digital skills training with some bipartisan support. Though not widely discussed, the Digital Skills for Today’s Workforce Act might be a catalyst for modernizing the current workforce and establishing baseline digital skills for workers as they become AI ready.

A 2020 report from the National Skills Coalition found that “nearly one-third of U.S. workers lack digital skills.” “The lower a person’s digital skills,” the report notes, “the lower their earnings tend to be.”

The act would support digital skills training within postsecondary education, adult education and workforce development systems. The Department of Labor already allows the use of existing funds to support digital skills and AI literacy, but this act could formalize and strengthen these activities through additional investments for states, cities and community-based organizations.

The current administration has prioritized AI and its potential for transformation. But without investments in people and more modernized workforce development systems, the race to AI adoption might be more aspirational than a reality for the current labor force — especially those who remain digitally invisible.

Nicol Turner Lee is the director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Digitally Invisible: How the Internet Is Creating the New Underclass.”

Massive private investment has propelled America’s AI leadership, but it also raises thorny questions about the technology’s market concentration, oversight and alignment with the public interest. The CREATE AI Act is no silver bullet, but it would mark a welcome step toward a more level, innovative and transparent AI ecosystem.

Today, AI research and innovation require ever greater computational infrastructure, which is prohibitively expensive for all but a few companies able to invest billions to build it. This effectively creates a world of AI haves and have-nots that can leave researchers, students and small businesses locked out unless they partner with a major company for computationally intensive work. Such concentration saps innovation and limits independent researchers’ ability to engage in frontier AI research on issues like security and reliability.

The CREATE AI Act would help bridge the divide by making permanent the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR), which is now just a two-year pilot. Essentially, NAIRR provides AI infrastructure for the public interest by making large-scale computing, data and training resources available to U.S. researchers, students and small businesses for vetted projects. As we enter the age of advanced AI, it’s essential that more than a handful of companies have a seat at the table.

Vivek Chilukuri is the senior fellow and program director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.