

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.

Sam Quigley, sam@patrioticmillionaires.org, 202-446-0489
Today, the US House of Representatives voted 234-193 on HR 1, the For the People Act, which includes a wide variety of election and campaign finance-related reforms. This vote came on a virtual party-line split, with every Democrat present voting yes and no support from House Republicans. In response, Morris Pearl, Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and former managing director at BlackRock, Inc., issued the following statement:
The Patriotic Millionaires is a group of high-net worth Americans who share a profound concern about the destabilizing level of inequality in America. Our work centers on the two things that matter most in a capitalist democracy: power and money. Our goal is to ensure that the country's political economy is structured to meet the needs of regular Americans, rather than just millionaires. We focus on three "first" principles: a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens.
(202) 446-0489"Why does Democratic leadership continue to oppose a measure supported by 74% of Democratic voters?" asked one commentator.
With a key amendment to a 2027 spending bill expected to come up for a vote in the US House of Representatives in the coming days, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had what one organizer called "a real opportunity... to show he's listening" to the Democratic Party's base and its growing disapproval of US military aid for Israel.
But on Tuesday, progressive advocates said Jeffries (D-NY) had squandered that opportunity by announcing in a Dear Colleague letter that he would oppose the amendment put forward by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which would eliminate the $3.3 billion the US provides to Israel's military annually.
Last month, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who was detained by armed Israeli settlers in the West Bank this week—urged his colleagues to back the amendment, calling US support for Israel "the moral test of our time" as he stood in front of a memorial for 20,000 children killed by the Israeli military in Gaza.
In the letter and at a caucus meeting Tuesday morning, Jeffries claimed the amendment was "overly broad" and could limit funds for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and other operations.
He also asserted that the funding cut would restrict the United States' ability to "confront Hamas."
The US government, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, has relentlessly claimed that Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza that began in 2023 has targeted Hamas, even as refugee camps, schools, hospitals, residential buildings, aid workers, and children have been targeted by the Israel Defense Forces and as Israel has concurrently ramped up violent efforts to annex the West Bank.
A ceasefire in Gaza was reached in October 2025, but more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since the deal was signed. In all, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed.
As the US has continued to give material and political support to Israel, approval of the military aid and the Israeli government has plummeted among the American public.
More than half of Democratic voters said in an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll last week that they believed the US-backed military operation amounted to a genocide.
A Quinnipiac University poll found last August that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 60% of all voters supported suspending US weapons aid to Israel.
A number of progressive Democratic challengers, including Melat Kiros in Colorado, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, have also decisively won primary races in recent months after campaigning on a suspension of US military aid to Israel, noted Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats.
In the corporate press, the issue at hand was described as one that has "sharply divided" Democrats in recent weeks—a characterization that Adam Johnson of the podcast "Citations Needed" vehemently rejected.
"This issue is very much not 'dividing' the party writ large," said Johnson. "Support for cutting aid to Israel among Dems is 74-20. Only 13% of Democrats have a positive view of Israel—less than the percentage of Democrats who support full abortion bans."
The "divide," said Johnson, is between voters and the party leadership, particularly Democrats who—like Jeffries—have taken millions of dollars from the pro-Israel lobby.
"Why does Democratic leadership continue to oppose a measure supported by 74% of Democratic voters?" asked Johnson. "Where are all the popularism pundits decrying the Democrats' out-of-touch leadership, ignoring a broadly popular position, one also supported by the majority of independents?"
Jeffries said in the Dear Colleague letter that his opposition to the amendment was "consistent" with that of "pro-peace organizations like J Street."
J Street, which describes itself as a "pro-peace" and "liberal Zionist" group, expressed opposition to the amendment, but said it would also "support those members who vote yes to signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how US security assistance is used."
Erik Sperling, executive director of the progressive think tank Just Foreign Policy, said J Street's "hedging" on the amendment was "a moral stain" for the organization.
"Genuine pro-peace groups cannot allow billions in US taxpayer money to be sent to [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel now," said Sperling.
"Simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy," said Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
Senate Democrats appeared set to block President Donald Trump and the Republican Party's sprawling, $1.15 trillion annual military policy bill in a procedural vote scheduled for Tuesday after the White House formally notified lawmakers of an extension of its illegal Iran war.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose advancing the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unless lawmakers agree to attach her amendment prohibiting any of the bill's funds from going toward the war on Iran. Duckworth said in a statement that "simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy. It’s a recipe for a forever war."
“The Senate cannot authorize $1.14 trillion in defense spending—the largest defense budget ever proposed in our nation’s history—for Donald Trump to continue his illegal and disastrous war that Americans do not want," Duckworth added. "The stakes couldn’t be higher, and I cannot support a defense authorization bill that doesn’t include my amendment to end this illegal war."
The procedural vote on the NDAA is scheduled for 2:40 pm ET, and it needs 60 votes to advance—requiring the support of some Senate Democrats.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who spearheaded earlier efforts to halt Trump's Iran war using the War Powers Act, told reporters on Monday that "it’ll probably be hard to get there this week," referring to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the NDAA. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who is seen as a critical swing vote, said Monday that she's "undecided" on the legislation.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would vote no, calling the NDAA "essentially an Iran war authorization bill."
"A totally unprecedented 50% increase in spending to fund the war without any meaningful restraints," Murphy wrote on social media.
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war advocacy organization, said Monday that no senator who has supported legislative efforts to end the Iran war should back additional funding for the military as long as the illegal conflict continues.
"The ceasefire has collapsed, US bombs are falling on Iran again, and oil prices are climbing... all after Americans were told this war was over," the group wrote in a new petition urging lawmakers to "defend the Constitution, stop the Iran war, and vote NO on the NDAA."
"Congress has additional leverage to force compliance: the power of the purse," the petition continued. "If members block the NDAA... and reject any Iran war supplemental—Trump cannot ignore them."
In addition to the $1.15 trillion NDAA, the Trump administration is pushing for at least $67 billion in supplemental Pentagon funding to "address urgent needs related to" the Iran war, which is now in its fourth month despite the president's insistence in late March that it would be over "within two to three weeks."
Late last week, Trump formally notified Congress of new "strikes against targets within Iran," insisting the attacks were "consistent with" the War Powers Act.
Critics accused the president, who has never sought congressional authorization for the war, of cynically trying to restart the 1973 law's 60-day clock after declaring the ceasefire with Iran "over." The War Powers Act requires "automatic termination of the use of US forces engaged in hostilities 60 days after the president has reported (or was required to report) on the use of force."
"Any assertion by the Trump administration that he gets 60 more days to act without Congress has no foundation in law," said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who on Monday unveiled a new war powers resolution aimed at ending the president's assault on Iran.
"By forcing a new vote to end this war, we make it clear that Congress insists on the removal of troops from the region barring an authorization of force accompanied by a truly viable strategy—both of which have been lacking," Schiff added.
"The catastrophic cuts Trump and RFK Jr. made to disease surveillance and research keep coming back to haunt us," said one critic.
The Trump administration is coming under fire for its response to the outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a foodborne illness that causes explosive diarrhea and has so far been documented in more than two dozen states.
Public health officials still have not identified the source of the outbreak, which typically spreads via contaminated produce.
In an interview with Axios published Saturday, David Freedman, professor emeritus of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, suggested that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not been on top of tracking the outbreak the same way it has been in the past.
"Right now it's individual state health departments that are having to speak up," remarked Freedman, "because the CDC is really not following it on a day-to-day basis."
Omer Awan, vice chair and associate program director for the diagnostic radiology residency at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, told PBS in an interview published Monday that infections will likely only grow if the government doesn't track down the source of the outbreak quickly.
"Because we haven't pinned it down, that means that these cases are likely to disseminate," said Awan. "People are still eating the contaminated food that's leading to so many cases."
Awan added that mass firings at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the leadership of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were hindering CDC's ability to track the disease.
"The HHS and the federal government laid off a lot of CDC employees," said Awan. "Many of them were the very employees that would track these particular outbreaks. And the other is that, from July of 2025 last year, the CDC has no longer required reporting cyclosporiasis. It's become optional to report this to the CDC's Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network."
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, pointed to the CDC decision to stop monitoring the cyclospora parasite as an example of the Trump administration putting Americans "in another shitty situation after laying waste to our public health infrastructure and gutting emergency preparedness."
"Because RFK Jr.’s CDC turned a blind eye to dangerous foodborne pathogens," Woodhouse added, "this outbreak spread quickly and states are now scrambling to do their own detective work on what’s causing it. The catastrophic cuts Trump and RFK Jr. made to disease surveillance and research keep coming back to haunt us, yet they want to cut even deeper to make up for their tax breaks for billionaires."
The Washington Post on Tuesday reported that both federal and state officials have launched an investigation into whether fast food chain Taco Bell "played a role" in the cyclosporiasis outbreak.
According to the Post's sources, some people who got sick from the disease said they had eaten at Taco Bell shortly becoming symptomatic, although others who were infected by the parasite said they had not eaten at the fast food chain before growing ill.
"Public health officials have said this season’s unusually high number of illnesses, now reported in more than 30 states," reported the Post, "means more information and more patients to help identify shared foods, shopping habits and restaurant visits among those sickened to help determine the source."