SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 11 2023, 04:26pm EDT
Contact:
Email:,press@demandprogress.org
26 orgs urge support for Syria war powers NDAA amendment
Today, a transpartisan group of 26 organizations – including Demand Progress Action, Common Defense, R Street, Justice Foreign Policy, Center for International Policy, Quincy Institute, and Win Without War – sent a letter to representatives urging them to support a Syria war powers amendment offered by Rep. Bowman to the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Reps. Bush, Schakowsky, Tlaib, Khanna, Doggett, Hoyle, Mace, and Gaetz.
The amendment, which was supported by 60% of House Democrats when last introduced, ends funding for the continued U.S. military presence in Syria within a year of passage unless Congress passes specific statutory authorization, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Constitution. Earlier this year, 47 Republicans voted in favor of this policy.
Cavan Kharrazian, Foreign Policy Advisor at Demand Progress, offered the following remarks:
“The unauthorized US military presence in Syria has gone on far too long. Congress owes it to US servicemembers and everyday people in Syria to have a serious debate and vote on whether they are to remain in harm’s way, and to what end. We’ve seen strong support from both sides of the aisle for this policy, and above all else, the War Powers Act and Constitution demand it.”
The letter notes the urgency of congressional vote and debate on continued US military presence in Syria given the escalation of danger for US servicemembers, exemplified by tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and militias that included a drone attack that killed a US contractor and injured five servicemembers in March. Defense Department officials later told Congress that U.S. forces have come under attack “83 separate times” since 2021.
If passed, the amendment would not immediately end US military presence in Syria, but would rather allow Congress a full year after the enactment of the FY 24 NDAA to debate and vote on either continuing, ending, or modifying US presence in Syria.
The full list of signers:
Action Corps
Bring Our Troops Home
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center for International Policy
Common Defense
Defense Priorities Initiative
Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
Demand Progress Action
Historians for Peace and Democracy
If Not Now
Institute for Policy Studies - New Internationalism Project
Justice Democrats
Justice Is Global
Just Foreign Policy
MADRE
Muslims for Just Futures
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
R Street
RootsAction.org
Secure Justice
United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church Ministries
Veterans For Peace
Win Without War
World BEYOND War
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Unacceptable': Campaigners Decry Climate Finance Failures as COP29 Enters Final Hours
"By the end of the UN climate talks, we must see at least a trillion dollars in public finance on the table," said one campaigner.
Nov 21, 2024
As the clock winds down at the UN climate summit taking place in Baku, Azerbaijan, green groups are sounding the alarm Thursday following the release of a draft climate finance deal that they say falls short of what's needed to support climate-vulnerable countries and adequately address the planetary crisis.
"The clock is ticking. COP29 is now down to the wire," said UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday, just a day before the two-week conference is set to conclude.
Finance has been a major focus of this year's summit. Under the 20125 Paris Agreement, countries are supposed to come up with a "new collective quantified goal"—or NCQG in COP jargon—that will govern how much money from rich countries will be transferred to developing countries in order to help the latter cut their emissions and adapt to climate change.
No equivalent climate finance arrangement has been agreed to before, though countries at the summit broadly agree that richer countries, who are responsible for much of historic CO2 emissions, should help poorer and more climate-vulnerable nations deal with natural disasters and their transition to green energy.
The draft text that dropped early Thursday, however, was received poorly.
Oxfam International's climate justice lead, Safa’ Al Jayoussi, said "COP29 must do more than simply repeat the same threadbare promises. Rich countries have spent decades now stalling and blocking genuine progress on climate finance. This has left the Global South suffering the most catastrophic consequences of a climate crisis they did not create. The draft text scandalously misses the crucial element of declaring a clear public commitment to a new climate finance goal."
Instead of specifying how much annually should be funneled towards developing countries via climate finance, the NCQG draft text displayed "X" in place of any actual figures or monetary commitments.
Oscar Soria, a director at the Common Initiative think tank, told the Guardian: "The negotiating placeholder 'X' for climate finance is a testament of the ineptitude from rich nations and emerging economies that are failing to find a workable solution for everyone."
"By the end of the UN climate talks, we must see at least a trillion dollars in public finance on the table," added Andreas Sieber, 350.org associate director of policy and campaigns. Economists told the summit attendees last week that developing countries need at least $1 trillion annually by 2030 to deal with climate change.
A specific and shared concern from campaigners was the draft text's inclusion of carbon market schemes as a way "to scale up" climate finance. While the draft promotes "high-integrity voluntary carbon markets" and other "instruments that mobilize new sources of climate finance and private finance" as part of the equation, critics have long warned that these market-based approaches are nothing but false solutions designed to benefit corporate investors, wealthier nations, and the fossil fuel industry itself.
"Labelling carbon credits as climate finance—which they are unreservedly not—should be axed from the text or risk creating a dangerous escape route for polluters. The same goes for explicitly allowing investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. This is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement," said Laurie van der Burg, Oil Change International's global public finance manager, in response to the draft text.
While Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows for the international transfer of carbon credits, groups warned the changes in the COP29 draft would dramatically strengthen the foothold of such schemes.
"Shockingly, COP29 is set to agree to carbon markets that are even worse than the voluntary carbon markets," said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth International. "We know these markets have failed. They are riddled with fraud and they do not reduce emissions or provide finance. Communities everywhere and, in fact, the planet itself is on the line."
Without addressing these concerns, advocates of a meaningful deal at the conference say COP29 is headed for failure.
As 350.org's Sieber argued, paying the "historic debt that rich countries owe will enable all nations to take action on climate at home and meet the collective goal agreed last year at COP28—to triple renewable energy, and transition away from fossil fuels. Right now, we only see cowardice and a void in leadership, ignoring the undeniable science that we can't keep polluting our planet with dirty oil, gas and coal."
"The time to course correct is now—the European Union and other rich countries must stop playing poker with the planet and humankind's future at stake," Sieber added. "It's time to put their cards on the table and commit real, transformative funding—no more excuses, no more delays, it's time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Plutocrats $276 Billion Richer Since Trump Win—And GOP Wants to Give Them Even More
"The tax fight is starting now," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "Will we sign our names to more giveaways to President-elect Trump's billionaire buddies, or will we fight for tax fairness for the American people?"
Nov 21, 2024
An analysis released Wednesday showed that the United States' 815 billionaires have seen their combined wealth surge by roughly $280 billion since Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election earlier this month, a finding that came as Republicans continued to lay the groundwork for another massive tax giveaway for the rich.
Citing Forbes data, Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) noted that the collective net worth of the nation's billionaires jumped $276 billion between November 4—the day before Election Day—and November 12. Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man and a Trump confidant, accounted for 20% of the total billionaire wealth surge, with his net worth growing by $57 billion in just a week.
ATF found that U.S. billionaire wealth is now at an all-time high of $6.7 trillion—a fact that hasn't deterred Republican lawmakers from pursuing additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which they want to pay for in part by slashing Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
"Among the tax handouts the GOP hopes to offer America's plutocrats is a weakening or elimination of the estate tax, the federal government's only curb on dynastic wealth," ATF noted. "As proof of the party's intent, the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has chosen as its next leader the chamber's main champion of estate-tax repeal, John Thune (R-S.D.)."
The group observed that scrapping the estate tax would save billionaire households an estimated $2.7 trillion while depriving "working Americans of the exact same amount of funding for vital public services like Medicare, childcare, education, and housing."
Since the highly regressive 2017 Trump-GOP tax cut that Republicans are looking to extend and expand, U.S. billionaire wealth has risen by $3.8 trillion—over 131%—according to ATF.
"Instead of addressing the nation's growing economic inequality and the growing shortfall in federal revenue, President Trump and congressional Republicans plan to make the situation even worse by enacting a new tax cut package that gives billionaires tax breaks on the backs of working people," the group said Wednesday. "This Republican tax plan will start with extending all the expiring provisions in the 2017 Trump law—which alone will balloon the federal debt by $5 trillion over the next decade—but will likely include new handouts to the very wealthy, such as elimination of the estate tax."
During a hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voiced similar concerns about the Trump-GOP tax agenda, which also includes cutting the statutory corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%.
"President-elect Trump has proposed making every single 2017 tax cut for the wealthy permanent," Warren said during the Senate hearing. "In fact, he plans to go further by cutting the corporate tax rate even more, so that giant corporations making record profits off struggling Americans can shovel even more cash to their rich executives and shareholders."
"The tax fight is starting now, and every person in the United States, every person in the Senate, needs to show the American people what side we stand on," said Warren. "Will we sign our names to more giveaways to President-elect Trump's billionaire buddies, or will we fight for tax fairness for the American people?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
15 Democrats Join House GOP to Pass 'MAGA Assault' on Nonprofits
"This bill is a five-alarm fire for anyone who seeks to protect free speech, civil society, and democracy," said one rights advocate.
Nov 21, 2024
After widespread condemnation of 52 U.S. House Democrats who joined the GOP last week in backing a bill that would threaten nonprofit groups, there was significantly less support among Democratic members for the legislation on Thursday—but civil society groups denounced those who persisted in supporting what one critic called a "MAGA assault" on fundamental rights.
The so-called "Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act" (H.R. 9495) passed in the House by a vote of 219-184, with 15 Democrats joining all but one Republican in supporting the bill.
The 15 Democrats who supported the legislation in Thursday's vote include Reps. Jared Golden (Maine), Colin Allred (Texas), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Henry Cuellar (Texas).
If ultimately signed into law, the bill would allow the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke tax-exempt status from nonprofits that it deems "terrorist supporting organizations."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich urged the Senate, which is led by the Democrats until January, not to allow the "attack on free speech [to] come up for a vote during the lame-duck."
"If it does, they must vote NO," he said.
But with Republicans set to take control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House after the New Year, advocates are warning that it will ultimately give the Trump administration "unprecedented and unchecked power" to take action against groups whose mission and work President-elect Donald Trump opposes, particularly those fighting for Palestinian rights.
"This bill is a five-alarm fire for anyone who seeks to protect free speech, civil society, and democracy. This bill is part of a broader MAGA assault on the fundamental right to public protest that begins with attacks on Palestinian rights groups and is aimed at outlawing all social justice movements fighting for progressive change," said Beth Miller, political director for Jewish Voice for Peace. "It is shameful that the House of Representatives passed a bill that is straight out of the well-worn authoritarian playbook. The Senate must ensure that this bill to dismantle fundamental freedoms does not move forward or become law."
JVP noted that H.R. 9495 has its roots in the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation's Christian nationalist initiative Project Esther, which claims to combat antisemitism but is aimed at denying resources to groups that support the human rights of Palestinian people.
Advocacy groups including JVP credited civil society groups that mobilized in recent days to demand that Democrats oppose H.R. 9495, as Republicans prepared to bring the bill up again for a simple-majority floor vote. The legislation was blocked in the previous vote, despite the support of 52 Democrats, because it required a two-thirds majority to pass under a procedural rule.
JVP Action said it "drove over 35,000 letters to Congressional offices in one week opposing this legislation," while groups including Fight for the Future, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations also joined the effort.
Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent, a group dedicated to protecting the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, condemned the lawmakers who were unmoved by "overwhelming civil society opposition."
"Two hundred and four Republicans and 15 Democrats in the House voted in favor of a bill that will be used to strip organizations of their nonprofit status in a politically motivated fashion and without proper due process," said Gibbons. "The bill is driven by the current McCarthyite attacks on Palestine solidarity activism, but it empowers the executive branch to crackdown on charities broadly. It is intolerable for any administration to have these powers, but it is reckless for anyone who claims Trump poses a threat to democracy to hand his administration yet another weapon to use against their opponents."
Under the legislation, the federal government would not be required to disclose evidence of its allegations that nonprofits are "terrorist supporting organizations."
"In the absence of meaningful due process, any nonprofit—from humanitarian organizations to independent newsrooms—could risk losing tax-exempt status," said Defending Rights & Dissent. "The bill has further implications for civil society. The mere threat of being tied up in litigation, facing the reputational harm that such a designation would bring, and loss of donors, would chill speech and stifle dissent."
Online news outlet Mondoweiss said that if signed by Trump after he takes office, the measure "could become a powerful tool to crack down on groups that advocate for justice in Palestine."
"If H.R. 9495 becomes law, we'll be entering a dangerous era where nonprofits can be shut down with little evidence and no accountability," said Mondoweiss. "Today it's pro-Palestinian groups—tomorrow it could be any organization critical of government policy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular