

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.

Violent deaths among blacks in the nation's capital
have become a public health epidemic, with murder ranking as the
leading cause of years of potential life lost for black men in
Washington, D.C., according to a study released today by Public Citizen.
Rather than look at raw mortality rates, the study
looked at the "years of potential life lost" (YPLL), which measures
premature deaths against an average life expectancy of 70. The study
compared the rates of premature death from various causes among whites,
blacks and Hispanics in the District, as well as the nation as a whole.
The study also compared causes of death and years of life lost between
men and women.
The study found a glaring disparity when it came to the
homicide rate for blacks, especially men. The statistics show that
murders are the second-leading cause of premature deaths among the
District population as a whole, primarily because of the homicide rate
among black men. Nationally, homicide is ranked as the sixth leading
cause of premature death. Cancer is the leading cause of premature
death both nationally and in the District.
The District's gulf between blacks, whites and
Hispanics hits home when one considers that in the District, whites and
Hispanics typically live longer than they do in the U.S. as a whole.
However, that is not the case with blacks, who have a greater rate of
years of potential life lost in the District than they do nationally,
the study shows.
Among other trends uncovered by the study was a high
rate of years of potential life lost from HIV, which ranks as the fifth
leading cause of years of potential life lost in the District but does
not rank in the top 10 nationally. The study also found that Hispanics
had a higher rate of years of potential life lost due to congenital
anomalies than either blacks or whites.
Differences in the rate of YPLL between men and women
also are significant in the District. Men have almost twice the rate of
years of potential life lost as women. The breakdown by cause shows
that men have higher rates of YPLL than women for nine of the top 10
causes. And the differences between males and females are particularly
marked among Hispanics.
"These numbers show us that the District of Columbia is
a city deeply divided along racial and gender lines, in terms of years
of preventable life lost," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the
Health Research Group at Public Citizen.
The study shows a glaring need for the District to commit more resources to combat these causes of premature deaths, Wolfe said.
"The fact that violence is shortening the lives of so
many the District residents should be part of the rationale for
adopting new measures, such as new regulations that restrict the misuse
of firearms within the city," said Wolfe, who noted that while the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down the District's handgun ban, the ruling did
not imply the right to bear arms is absolute.
Annette Ramirez de Arellano, a Public Citizen
researcher and expert on health policy, said the city can use the
statistics to track disparities and better monitor health outcomes.
"These data can be used to target specific groups and
neighborhoods for early intervention and education," she said. "The
very high rate of birth defects among Hispanics is one example of this."
The study can be found at: https://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7612.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000Despite Mamdani's campaign pledge, legal experts have consistently cast doubt on a New York City mayor's authority to order the arrest of a foreign leader.
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani may have a chance to fulfill one of his campaign promises on his first day of office, although legal experts have repeatedly cast doubt on his power to make it happen.
Republican New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov on Tuesday sent a formal invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in New York City on January 1, 2026, while at the same time daring Mamdani to keep his pledge to have him arrested on war crimes charges.
"On January 1, Mamdani will take office," Vernikov wrote in a post on X. "And also on January 1, I look forward to welcoming Bibi to New York City. NY will always stand with Israel, and no radical Marxists with a title can change that."
The International Criminal Court (ICC) last year issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel's war in Gaza that has killed at least 69,000 Palestinians.
During his successful mayoral campaign, Mamdani repeatedly said that he would enforce the warrant against Netanyahu should the Israeli leader set foot in his city.
Although Mamdani backed off some of his most strident past statements during the campaign, particularly when it comes to the New York Police Department (NYPD), he doubled down on arresting Netanyahu during a September interview with The New York Times.
"This is a moment where we cannot look to the federal government for leadership," Mamdani told the paper. "This is a moment when cities and states will have to demonstrate what it actually looks like to stand up for our own values, our own people."
However, legal experts who spoke with the Times cast doubt on Mamdani's authority as the mayor of a major American city to arrest a foreign head of government, even if the person in question has been indicted by the ICC.
Among other things, experts said that the NYPD does not have jurisdiction to arrest Netanyahu on international war crimes charges, and the Israeli leader would have to commit some crime in violation of local state or city laws to justify such an action.
Additionally, the US has never been party to the ICC and does not recognize its legal authority.
Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School, told the Times that Mamdani's stated determination to arrest Netanyahu was "more a political stunt than a serious law-enforcement policy."
Speaker Mike Johnson has been accused of blocking Grijalva from her seat because she'd be the 218th vote to release the files on the late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.
After being kept out of Congress for more than seven weeks by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva will finally be sworn in as a member of the US House of Representatives this week.
Johnson told CNN on Monday night that Grijalva will be sworn in after Congress returns from a lengthy absence this week, when it is expected to vote to end the longest government shutdown in US history.
The blockade on Grijalva, who was elected to fill her late father's House seat on September 23, is also the longest that an elected member of Congress has been kept out of the chamber after winning a special election.
While Johnson has insisted he could not swear in members of Congress during a recess, he notably did so this April for two Florida Republicans—Reps. Randy Fine and Jimmy Patronis—just one day after their elections.
Though he's denied the accusation, many have assumed that Johnson has dragged his feet on seating Grijalva because she is expected to be the final vote needed for the House to vote on a measure requiring the US Department of Justice to release its files on deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In late October, 20 victims of Epstein and his partner Ghislane Maxwell signed an open letter calling on Johnson to swear Grijalva into office.
"This delay appears to be a deliberate attempt to block her participation in the discharge petition that would force a vote to unseal the Epstein/Maxwell files," the survivors said. "The American public has a right to transparency and accountability, and we, as survivors, deserve justice."
In a news appearance last Monday, Grijalva said that someone told her on election night that Johnson is "not going swear you in because of those files."
"I thought, no, that can't be it," she said. "And here we are..."
The financier's ties to President Donald Trump have led to mounting suspicion, including from fellow Republicans like Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), who have said they plan to join Democrats in voting for the files' release.
Johnson has managed to delay a vote on the Epstein files for months. In July, as a bipartisan resolution pushed by Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was gaining steam, Johnson sent Congress home early for its August recess, which delayed business until September.
In the final weeks before the shutdown, after a bill to fund the government stalled in the Senate, Johnson sent members home again on September 19, just days before Grijalva's election would have made her the 218th vote to force an Epstein resolution to the floor.
While Grijalva expressed excitement at finally being sworn in, she said, "this delay never should have happened in the first place."
"For seven weeks, 813,000 Arizonans have been denied a voice and access to basic constituent services," she said in a statement published Monday. "This is an abuse of power that no speaker should have."
The House is expected to vote on a continuing resolution to reopen the government after eight Senate Democrats caved to Republican pressure on Sunday after weeks of holding the line in hopes of securing the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies that, if allowed to expire at the end of the year, will result in health insurance premiums more than doubling for over 20 million Americans.
"While I am eager to get to work," Grijalva said, "I am disappointed that one of my first votes will be on a bill that does nothing to protect working people from skyrocketing premiums, loss of health coverage, or do anything significant to rein in Trump's abuse of power."
Despite outcry from progressives, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer as leader.
With many Democratic base voters up in arms over Senate Democrats caving on the federal government shutdown fight, there have been calls for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership role.
None of those calls, however, have come from senators currently serving in the Democratic Caucus, including progressive stalwarts such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
As reported by The American Prospect on Tuesday, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer (D-NY) as leader, despite the fact that "every single one of them has the power to force a vote on Schumer’s continued control of the caucus" if they chose to do so.
According to the Prospect, any senator in the Democratic Caucus "could bring forward a motion to amend the Democratic Caucus Rules to say that he should lose his leadership position if a set number of members disapprove of him." What's more, the Prospect explained, "the motion would be 'self-executing,' resulting in Schumer’s removal at the same time that it’s approved."
As noted in a Politico report, Senate Democrats who were opposed to the shutdown cave did not directly criticize Schumer for his handling of the issue, and some, like Warren, tried to direct voters' anger toward Republicans.
"I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, regardless of what [President] Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on healthcare," she said on Sunday. "But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to post more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was more directly critical of the deal that Democrats cut on reopening the government, but he nonetheless stopped short of calling for Schumer's removal.
“This bill doesn’t do anything to arrest the healthcare catastrophe, nor does it constrain in any meaningful way President Trump’s illegality,” he said. “I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do, and more specifically, what they wanted Democrats to do, and I am really saddened that we didn’t listen to them.”
The appetite for ditching Schumer appears much stronger among Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives, however.
Axios on Monday reported that House Democrats' anger at their Senate counterparts erupted during a private phone call among members, as Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told her colleagues that "people are fucking pissed" at seeing Democrats once again cave in a fight with Trump.
One anonymous Democrat also told Axios that almost "everyone [was] strongly against" the deal Senate Democrats cut to reopen the government without an agreement to extend enhanced tax credits for Americans who buy their health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), called on Schumer to step down as minority leader, and challenged his opponent to do the same.
"If Chuck Schumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare," Moulton wrote in a social media post earlier this week. "Maybe now Ed Markey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”
Progressive advocacy organization Indivisible on Monday started ramping up pressure on Democrats to push for Schumer to step down as minority leader, and the group explicitly said that it would "not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader."