

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Madison Tang, CODEPINK China campaign coordinator, madison@codepink.org
Carley Towne, CODEPINK Co-Director, carley@codepink.org
CODEPINK, a women-led peace organization, calls on Congress to reject President Biden's record-high FY 2022 military budget of $753 billion, a $ 13 billion increase over the Trump administration's previous spendthrift military budget. In supporting a minimum 10% reduction in Pentagon spending, CODEPINK noted the annual savings could eradicate hunger and homelessness each year in the United States.
CODEPINK, a women-led peace organization, calls on Congress to reject President Biden's record-high FY 2022 military budget of $753 billion, a $ 13 billion increase over the Trump administration's previous spendthrift military budget. In supporting a minimum 10% reduction in Pentagon spending, CODEPINK noted the annual savings could eradicate hunger and homelessness each year in the United States.
"To spend nearly a trillion dollars to prepare for war pulls back the curtain on the Biden administration's professed interest in lifting people out of poverty," says Carley Towne, CODEPINK co-director. "While millions of Americans are steeped in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, facing eviction and struggling to pay medical bills amidst an ongoing health pandemic and recession, the Administration hurls taxpayer dollars at an increasingly privatized for-profit war industry."
Biden's budget includes upwards of $30 billion for new nuclear weapons slated to cost $1.7 trillion over the next decades, billions for the F-35 fighter jet, a boondoggle with an eventual $1-2 trillion price tag, $17.4 billion for an unnecessary Space Force and at least $51.5 billion annually to maintain over 800 overseas bases and establish new ones in the Indo-Pacific, where the Biden administration's pivot to Asia sets us on a reckless and dangerous course toward war with China.
President Biden's final Pentagon budget request signals alarming continuity with the Trump Administration which, over the course of four years, increased the Pentagon budget by $133 billion with bipartisan Congressional approval.
In light of the Biden Administration's announcement that the United States will be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by September 2021, the Pentagon budget should reflect a corresponding $50 billion reduction.
Instead, Biden's proposed Pentagon budget of $753 would provide the Department of Defense with more money than the Departments of State, Justice, Education, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined.
At the same time that Biden is set to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Biden and Congress are using China as the justification for this massive increase in military spending by framing China as a danger to the U.S. and its allies. Biden's proposed Pentagon budget identifies China as a "top challenge," and Secretary of Defense Austin has stated, "China is our pacing threat." In reality, the inflated threat of China's military pales in comparison to the United States military: the U.S. has over 800 overseas military bases, hundreds of which surround the borders of China; China currently has only one official overseas military base, located in Djibouti.
"This same tactic of threat inflation led us to the U.S.'s catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003. The consequences of that intervention were not only horrific overseas but also proved deadly and harmful for Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Muslim-perceived communities," said Madison Tang, coordinator of CODEPINK's China Is Not Our Enemy campaign. "Today, we are already seeing the consequences of this escalation of war with China in the form of Sinophobic violence that targets Asians and Asian Americans of various ethnicities across the U.S. Anti-Asian violence has increased 194% in the first quarter of 2021 compared to 2020, according to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. This pattern of heightened xenophobia and scapegoating of a minority group as a corollary to U.S. imperialist wars is not new, and must be challenged."
"This push for rearmament, including hundreds of new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine mounted tactical nuclear weapons, comes amid concern the Biden administration's heated anti-China rhetoric and policies could plunge us into a nuclear war," said Marcy Winograd, coordinator of CODEPINK Congress, a campaign to mobilize co-sponsors for progressive foreign policy legislation. "There is no law of gravity, however, that compels President Biden or Congress to continue funding the drive for nuclear rearmament or global omnicide."
At the end of the day, the Federal budget is up to Congress to decide, not the President. We call on Congress to reduce the Pentagon budget by at least 10% and instead invest in what will truly make us safe: universal healthcare, good jobs, and addressing the climate crisis.
Act Now:
It's now more important than ever to contact your representatives and send them the CODEPINK guide to Pentagon budget cuts to demand that they show their support to reduce the Pentagon budget and invest in human needs!
Additional Quotes and Reactions on Biden's Proposed Pentagon Budget from the International Community:
"The way the US budget overemphasizes the military hurts the American people and the world. A tiny fraction of the money that President Biden is proposing for the military budget would save the lives of millions of children in Yemen. Wouldn't that be a better investment in the future than more bombs, warships and nuclear weapons?" - Aisha Jumaan, President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
"This enormous Pentagon budget will only lead to more military conflicts, more bloodshed, more grief. We saw enough of that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years. It's time to invest in peace." - Basir Bita, local activist in Kabul Afghanistan
"There are many places where the U.S. could and should spend more money. At least it can start by paying for some of the huge damages it has caused to the people in this country and abroad in the last several centuries. Increasing the military budget, however, only makes everything worse." - Dr. Xu, Professor of Economics at John Jay College, CUNY, former Professor of Economics at Renmin University of China, and Chinese citizen
"An increase in the US defense budget will mean the deployment and/or testing of US weapons in South Korea, which endangers the lives of residents near US bases. US military buildup has led to a perpetual arms race including nuclear weapons and nuclear threats in Northeast Asia. The deployment of the US THAAD missile defense system in South Korea in 2017 has raised tension in the region and is opposed by many South Koreans. Villagers near the new THAAD base have been protesting everyday against the illegal deployment. I join in the call to the Biden administration to reduce the US defense budget and invest in human security: Withdraw tension-raising weapon systems from Korea and end the more than 70-year-old Korean War with a peace agreement." - YouKyoung Ko, a consultant for Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and women-led Korea Peace Now! Campaign, and a standing committee member of the Korea Peace Appeal Campaign.
"The United States military continues to negatively impact the lives of people who have never consented to the U.S. military presence, particularly in island nations in the Asia Pacific region such as Hawaii, Okinawa, and the Marianas. The military presence places the people of these nations in mortal danger of annihilation, as was demonstrated in 2018 via the false ballistic missile alert in Hawaii, proving that the U.S. military is incapable of protecting us. Furthermore, the military creates a burden in numerous other ways, such as through crime, pollution, and economic deprivation." - Robert Kajiwara, founder of the Peace for Okinawa Coalition
"We, members of the International Women's Network against Militarism, unequivocally oppose the proposed Biden Pentagon budget. Spending nearly 50% of the US discretionary budget (more than the next 10 countries combined) demonstrates the destructive priorities of a society committed more to world military domination than care of its people and the natural environment. Increased militarization in the US and abroad will only create more insecurities, fear, and destruction--both at home and abroad especially in places of massive US military presence such as Okinawa and Guam. We urge the Biden-Harris administration to withdraw the current proposal and formulate one that will ensure full healthcare, quality education, and environmental protection," -International Women's Network Against Militarism
CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.
(818) 275-7232“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.