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
hakeem jeffries
After Khalil Abduction by ICE, Jeffries and Schumer 'Not the Men for This Moment In History'
Democratic leaders "helped create the conditions for this framing anti-genocide speech as antisemitic/terrorism," said one journalist.
Mar 11, 2025
The two highest-ranking Democratic members of Congress both call New York City home, but even with their personal connection to the city where immigration agents abducted a recent Columbia University graduate for his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have had little to say about Saturday night's arrest.
Amid mounting calls from House progressives and advocacy groups for the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil on Monday evening, Jeffries released a statement that one local rights group derided as "word salad," starting by accepting the Trump administration's narrative about the former student who helped organize last year's Palestinian solidarity encampment.
"To the extent his actions were inconsistent with Columbia University policy and created an unacceptable hostile academic environment for Jewish students and others, there is a serious university disciplinary process that can handle the matter," said Jeffries, calling on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "produce facts and evidence of criminal activity... such as providing material support for a terrorist organization."
Jeffries noted that the Trump administration's arrest and detention of Khalil—which were carried out under the State Department's "catch and revoke" program—"are wildly inconsistent with the United States Constitution." His statement contrasted starkly with those of his progressive colleagues including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who warned that the Trump administration is signaling "they can disappear US citizens too," and demanded Khalil's release.
The House leader's statement came after a federal judge blocked the administration from removing Khalil from the U.S. and reviewed a petition saying his detention is unlawful. Khalil is a legal resident with a green card and a citizen of Algeria.
The statement from Jeffries—who has faced condemnation for suggesting Democrats are powerless to stop President Donald Trump from imposing his agenda and has privately complained about demands for action from advocacy groups—offered the latest evidence that "he is impressively unsuited to the moment," as writer Noah Kulwin said.
Schumer, who is "the most powerful politician in New York State, and the highest ranking American Jewish elected official—locally famous for his retail politics and shaking everyone's hands at local events," had not released a statement on Khalil's detention at press time, noted local historian and community organizer Asad Dandia.
"Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are not the men for this moment in history," saidNew Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang. "So obvious and gets more obvious by the day."
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) abduction of Khalil and efforts to have him deported—with Trump warning his arrest will be the "first of many"—came as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that under the "catch and revoke" program, the administration "will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported." On Sunday, DHS said the arrest was carried out "in support of President Trump's executive orders prohibiting antisemitism."
Supporters of Trump's actions have pointed to videos of Khalil being interviewed last year about the Columbia encampment and organizers' negotiations with Columbia officials to push for divestment from companies that have profited from Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank.
"Our demands are clear, our demands are regarding divestment from the Israeli occupation, the companies that are profiting and contributing to the genocide of our people," said Khalil in one video.
Adalah-NY, which supports calls for a boycott of Israel to protest its oppression and violence against Palestinians, said it was "no coincidence" that Jeffries offered tacit approval of the accusations against Khalil, considering his longtime vocal support for Israel.
"Fire Hakeem Jeffries," said Track AIPAC, which keeps track of donations lawmakers receive from the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Jeffries has taken $1.6 million from the lobbying group.
Musician Soul Khan asked whether Jeffries and Schumer are "trying to get Mahmoud Khalil out of ICE detention and ensure the security of his green card status," calling his abduction "the most urgent domestic crisis happening right now."
Journalist Kylie Cheung called Khalil's abduction, along with the order to "single out, detain, persecute someone for their political speech" coming directly from the president, "the purest distillation of fascism."
But with Democratic leaders, including former President Joe Biden, joining Republicans in claiming that student-led protests against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza were endangering Jewish students, said Cheung, the party "helped create the conditions for this framing [of] anti-genocide speech as antisemitic/terrorism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Can Congressional Dems Fight Back Against Trump and Musk? Oversight
There are far too many tools at congressional Democrats’ disposal for them to throw up their hands and act as though nothing can be done.
Feb 28, 2025
Earlier this month, as Elon Musk and his DOGE agents were initiating their chaotic takeover of the federal government, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies (D-N.Y.) was asked what Democrats could do to slow Musk down or win concession in budget negotiations. In response, Jeffries literally threw up his hands and posed his own now-infamous question: “What leverage do we have?”
It was a wildly out-of-touch answer.
For one thing, the self-pitying tone is out of step with public opinion—Democratic voters and activists have been demanding more fight from their representatives. They want fewer (in fact, zero) Democratic Senators voting to confirm Trump nominees, and more spine in budget negotiation to get the simple concession of “no more unconstitutional impoundment of the funds we appropriate.” Fewer instances of Democratic representatives folding under the corrupting influence of crypto campaign cash to support industry-backed bills. More visiting and amplifying the voices of the people most harmed by DOGE’s cuts and firings.
As the minority party, Democrats certainly have less power, but they are far from powerless.
Further, Jeffries’ question suggests a concerning lack of familiarity with the modest—but substantial, and potentially impactful—array of tools at his and his colleagues’ disposal. In fact, as I lay out below, there are many things congressional Democrats can do, including requesting investigations from accountability offices; utilizing formal and informal hearings; writing letters to agency heads; and being opportunistic about accountability maneuvers at their disposal, even those unlikely to succeed in an immediate sense.
Congressional Oversight As The Minority Party
Democrats need to be winning the messaging battle, constantly telling the American people how Trump and DOGE are facilitating material harms. In that fight, Democrats have a key, but largely neglected, point of leverage: congressional oversight.
Prior to last year’s election, I wrote in Common Dreams that Democrats needed to better utilize their congressional oversight powers. But that was when Democrats had a Senate majority, and therefore the power to conduct official hearings, investigations, and issue subpoenas.
So, what can they do now?
Request Investigations from Accountability Offices
As the minority party, Democrats certainly have less power, but they are far from powerless. For starters, they can outsource investigations and research to nonpartisan offices like the Congressional Research Service, Inspectors General, or the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Each office has their usefulness, but given that President Donald Trump fired 17 Inspector General in a corrupt move that is currently being litigated, Democrats should focus on utilizing the GAO.
The GAO is an independent agency that acts as a watchdog at the request of Congress, conducting investigations to examine how federal dollars are spent and offering nonpartisan solutions on how to improve federal programs. (Essentially, GAO is what DOGE claims to be, minus the neo-nazi tendencies, complete lack of expertise, and rampant corruption.) Any member of Congress can request the GAO look into a given topic or program, though the office can take anywhere from a few months to over a year before finalizing reports.
For every instance of DOGE wreaking havoc, Democrats need to request a corresponding investigation, even if the GAO doesn’t have capacity to undertake each one or release the reports on an expedited timeline.
The long-term nature of the process can be leveraged strategically, though, with just a little bit of media savvy. In January of 2024, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) successfully requested a GAO report on the Community Health Center Fund and former President Joe Biden’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) program. He and his Republican colleagues then utilized the investigation to hold press conferences and release statements attacking the Biden administration for “prevent[ing] students and families from accessing crucial financial aid.” They got the spotlight they were looking for on their issue of choice, even though the GAO report wasn’t issued until two months prior to the election. (Of course, Republicans have done nothing to help implement the recommendations GAO made, now that the report is out.)
Regardless of whether Republican concern was genuine, the utility is clear. Democrats can make headlines today simply by requesting and securing investigations they are entitled, by virtue of being members of Congress, to ask for. In fact, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) recently did just that, successfully asking the GAO to investigate Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent giving DOGE access to payment systems. Perhaps more importantly, however, Democrats can use the GAO report that will eventually result to remind the American people of Bessent’s lawlessness long after it was buried in the public’s mind under a deluge of other scandals.
This tactic needs to be used for every agency and program under attack from DOGE. Request the GAO to investigate how spending freezes at the USDA and USAID will affect farmers. Request a report on staffing cuts at the FAA and the effect on air safety and travel times. Spend tax season demanding a review of how decimating the IRS will increase tax avoidance by the wealthy and increase wait times. For every instance of DOGE wreaking havoc, Democrats need to request a corresponding investigation, even if the GAO doesn’t have capacity to undertake each one or release the reports on an expedited timeline. (If Democrats ever give votes to an appropriations process that once again governs federal spending, they should request the GAO expand its staffing. Sadly, there are many talented recent civil servants on the job market.)
Utilize Hearings, Both Formal and Informal
Without control in either chamber, Democrats have little say over official Congressional hearings. But they still have two important roles they can harness: calling witnesses and asking questions. Democrats cannot subpoena witnesses, but they can still choose a witness to voluntarily appear at hearings. This often results in experts that can calmly explain the intricacies of an issue and recommend how to improve the situation. This isn’t bad on its face, but in the era of DOGE decimation, Democrats should be discerning in their witness choices.
Each DOGE attack means someone lost their job and someone is a victim of the funding cuts. Leverage this harm! Bring in people who have been fired at a given agency to explain exactly who they used to help or protect. Bring in the victims to explain how their lives will now be worse because of Trump and Musk. Democrats can force Congressional Republicans to face the people affected by their failure to constrain Trump. As recent vitriolic town halls exemplify, there’s ample appetite to make Republicans answer publicly for their cowardice.
In the same vein, Democrats need to be combative in every hearing. We rolled out a series of suggested questions for Trump nominees in their confirmation hearings, including new questions that Secretary of Education nominee Linda McMahon needs to answer before her confirmation vote. Unfortunately, Democrats were woefully unprepared, even praising some nominees and failing to use their fully allotted questioning time. This needs to change. Every hearing is an opportunity to produce a viral clip that can break through to people otherwise not paying attention.
Additionally, as my colleague Emma Marsano explained in this newsletter last week, Democrats can also hold informal hearings that amplify the voices of people most impacted by executive overreach. There are, unfortunately, countless examples they could be elevating through hearings, social media, press hits, and coordination with influencers. Democrats could also creatively use their franking privileges—sending mail to their constitutions using their signature as postage rather than a stamp—to inform constituents on “matters of public concern” or issue “questionnaires seeking public opinion” to get an idea of how DOGE actions are affecting people locally.
Flood the Zone with Letters
Members of Congress regularly send letters to heads of executive departments demanding answers and information regarding happenings under their purview. To their credit, Democrats have made good use of letters: to OMB Director Russell Vought demanding he reverse attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; to the SEC and other agencies demanding an investigation into Trump’s meme coin; to HUD Secretary Scott Turner highlighting the effect that proposed staffing cuts will have on seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, among many others.
While this method of oversight is virtually all bark, it’s a useful tool in garnering headlines to amplify your message. Democratic members on each congressional committee should closely monitor DOGE and other executive branch attacks on government functions, then produce as many letters as possible with the goal of getting coverage in the media. Not every letter will be picked up, but every headline that tells the public “Democrats are Fighting Republican Attacks on [Fill in the Blank]” is useful. These letters can also be referred back to as launching points for formal investigations or hearings should Democrats regain either chamber in the midterms.
Take Longshots, Even if They Miss
Democrats can try to utilize subpoena and impeachment powers, even if they are longshots. My colleague Kenny Stancil explained yesterday in The American Prospect that Democrats can (and should) move to impeach Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for his capitulation to, and lying about, DOGE’s attempts to access payment systems. While unlikely to result in a successful impeachment vote, it raises the issue’s salience and forces congressional Republicans to own it.
Similarly, earlier this month Democrats in the Oversight Committee tried to rush through a vote to subpoena Musk while Republicans were out of the room. It was a long shot that fell short, but it’s worth trying such tactics at every opportunity, on the off chance it works one time.
To be clear, none of these tactics alone will save us. Trump’s administration will continue to terrorize the civil service, and congressional Republicans will continue to stand by. But with many months between now and the midterms, Democrats need to use—no, leverage—every form of oversight at their disposal to slow down the onslaught, inform the American public, and ensure Republicans pay a hefty price.
There are far too many tools at congressional Democrats’ disposal for them to throw up their hands and act as though nothing can be done—people elected them to do something, and they need to act like it, especially with so much at stake.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If You're a Democrat Annoyed by Outraged Voters, You Are Doing It Wrong
To most registered Democrats, there’s nothing more important for lawmakers with a “D” after their names to do than battle tooth-and-nail against the Trump-Musk agenda for gutting the government while enriching the wealthy at everyone else’s expense.
Feb 24, 2025
The Capitol’s phone lines have been overwhelmed this month, and some Democrats are complaining about the deluge of calls from voters who implore them to fight the Trump administration. Too often the responses to the calls have amounted to passing the buck rightward.
“It's been a constant theme of us saying, ‘Please call the Republicans,’" Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer explained. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) is offended by what he’s hearing from constituents. “I reject and resent the implication that congressional Democrats are simply standing by passively,” he said.
Such reactions are political copouts. Those two congressmembers represent deep-blue districts, and both of their states are represented by Democratic senators. Responding to outraged constituents by telling them to “call the Republicans” is a way of dodging responsibility and accountability.
Mere shrugs from Democrats that they’re in the minority won’t wash.
It's easy enough for Torres, Beyer and others in the Democratic caucus to gripe about the volume of irate calls to their offices. And at first glance, telling constituents to contact Republicans instead might seem logical. But that’s actually a way of telling an angry Democratic base not to be a nuisance to Democratic lawmakers.
What’s more, as a practical matter, their constituents often have no way to message GOP members of Congress. The congressional email system doesn’t allow non-constituents to send a message to a representative or senator. And the first thing that a staffer wants to confirm on the phone is whether the caller is in fact a constituent.
Fully half of the nation’s citizens—and a large majority of Democrats—live in states with two Democratic senators. And so, routinely, when Democratic officeholders say that their agitated constituents should leave them alone and “call the Republicans,” it amounts to a brushoff that can be translated from politician-talk as “Stop bugging us already.”
But in primaries next year, some are liable to be held accountable. Few serving Democrats with blue electorates will face tight races in the 2026 general election—but if they’re perceived as wimps who failed to really put up a fight against President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, incumbents risk facing primary challenges propelled by grassroots anger.
The anger might seem overheated inside Capitol Hill bubbles. But it’s real for millions of engaged activists—the ones who volunteer in droves and can get behind insurgency campaigns with plenty of fundraising, canvassing power and social-media impacts.
Mere shrugs from Democrats that they’re in the minority won’t wash. “The rules of the Senate are designed to protect the rights of the minority, and Democrats have tools to grind Senate business to a halt to delay and defy the Trump-Musk coup,” the activist group Indivisible points out. “The three biggest weapons? Blanket opposition, quorum calls, and blocking unanimous consent -- parliamentary guerrilla tactics that can slow, stall, and obstruct at every turn.”
The needed opposition goes way beyond procedural maneuvers. The tenor and vehemence of public statements every day, from the hundreds of Democrats in the House and Senate, set a tone and convey messages beyond mere words on paper and screens.
The week after Trump’s return to the Oval Office, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) traveled to California and met with donor powerhouses in Silicon Valley, where he reportedly “said Democrats were reaching toward the center, while Trump will swing harder right.” Here we have the prospective next House speaker pledging to move in the direction of a president whom Gen. Mark Milley has described as “fascist to the core.”
Jeffries’ goal of hugging “the center” may play well with rich tech executives, but it shows notable indifference to the large bulk of Democratic voters. Early this month, CBS News reported that its polling shows “the nation's rank-and-file Democrats are increasingly looking for more opposition to President Trump from their congressional delegation.” The trend has been emphatic. Only 35 percent want Democrats in Congress to “try to find common ground with Trump,” while 65 percent want them to “oppose Trump as much as possible.”
Hugging “the center” may play well with rich tech executives, but it shows notable indifference to the large bulk of Democratic voters.
A rally last Thursday at Jeffries’ central Brooklyn office drew hundreds of protesters. One of them, Molly Ornati, an activist with the group 350 Brooklyn Water, said: “He’s acting as though this is a normal part of the political process, when this is a completely never before seen violation of the Constitution, of federal laws, separation of power, democratic principle—all of the key American values. He’s not standing up with the level of outrage that people meant to see, that Democrats want to see.”
The next day, on his latest California trip, Jeffries spoke in the Bay Area and generated headlines like “Hundreds Protest Outside Event With House Minority Leader” and “Oakland to Hakeem Jeffries: Do Your Job!” One of the local TV news reports summed up a theme of the demonstration this way: “Democratic Party has been paying lip service to the working class.”
To most registered Democrats, there’s nothing more important for lawmakers with a “D” after their names to do than battle tooth-and-nail against the Trump-Musk agenda for gutting the government while enriching the wealthy at everyone else’s expense. While Trump’s forces are setting fire to the basic structures of American democracy, Democrats in Congress are widely perceived to be wielding squirt guns. That’s no way to prevent tyranny or win the next elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular