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
Progressives Rip 'Spineless' Dem Leaders for 'Empty' Response to Trump's Venezuela Attack
“If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation," said one progressive congressman.
Jan 07, 2026
As Donald Trump blows by Barack Obama's record for most countries bombed by a US president, progressive observers are fuming over Democratic leadership's inaction in response to the abduction of Venezuela's president and other illegal acts of war.
Congressional Democrats' reaction to Trump's brazen bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro—who faces dubious narco-terrorism charges in the US—ranged from open praise by members of the party's conservative wing like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), to fierce condemnation by Congressional Progressive Caucus Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other anti-war leftists including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
However, numerous observers have noted that, as Chris Lehmann wrote Tuesday for the Nation, senior Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, "are doing what they do best on Venezuela: Nothing."
Trump "staged an illegal coup," Lehmann argued. "Chuck Schumer's response? Empty words and meaningless parliamentary maneuvers."
Schumer did co-sponsor a war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from using military force in or against Venezuela. However, like nearly every other resolution ever introduced in a bid to force presidential compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act, it failed to muster enough votes to pass. Trump has now ordered attacks on 10 countries, compared with seven bombed under Obama and at least six under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
"The central complaint from Democratic leaders has been that the Trump White House didn’t properly consult Congress in advance of its crime spree. And even that grievance rings hollow," Lehmann said. "Thus far, Democrats have shown no inclination to pursue an impeachment resolution against the president—the clear constitutional remedy for such abuses—even as a growing chorus of lawmakers are calling for it, together with leaders of the party’s activist base."
"Sadly," he continued, "the party’s inert approach to illegitimate acts of war well predates Trump’s Venezuela rampage; leading Democrats sat on their hands while their own president backed a genocidal war in Gaza—a lockstep posture of complicity so deeply ingrained that the Democratic National Committee refused to let any Palestinian speaker take the stage at the party’s 2024 convention."
"Democrats likewise enthusiastically hailed Barack Obama’s raid in Pakistan to kidnap and execute Osama bin Laden with little thought that it would serve as a precedent for later imperial errands like Maduro’s ouster," Lehmann added.
Truthdig contributor Conor Lynch on Monday noted the stark contrast between the Democratic Party's left wing and its leadership in response to Trump's aggression, highlighting a warning from Graham Platner, a military veteran and progressive US Senate candidate from Maine, about politicians “on both sides of the aisle trying to convince us all that somehow this was justified.”
Lynch wrote that "more than two decades and countless deaths later, the party that led the US into disastrous quagmires in the Middle East is intent on leading the country into yet another war."
While there are more anti-war Democratic voices in Congress than there have been since the Vietnam War era, many senior Democrats in both chambers have a history of approving wars. Every current Democratic lawmaker who was in office in 2001 voted to authorize the so-called War on Terror, while Schumer, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and several House Democrats still in office assented the following year to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"Most Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq," Lynch continued. "This was partly due to the initial public support for the war and the George W. Bush administration’s fabricated intelligence about [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s 'weapons of mass destruction' (much like the Trump administration’s fabricated claims about the Venezuelan government’s support for 'narco-terrorism')."
"Today there is no excuse for Democrats to stand by as another Republican president—this one historically unpopular—launches an illegal invasion in our own backyard," Lynch asserted. "Indeed, it is not only morally correct but politically smart to oppose the illegal attack on Venezuela, as there is little appetite for another regime change crusade among the American public."
"If there was ever a time for Democrats to grow a spine, it’s now," Lynch added. He pointed to Rep. Ro Khanna's (Calif.) declaration on Saturday that "if you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation.'"
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) issued a similar call Sunday, urging members of Congress "to reject the shameful bipartisan complicity in this campaign of escalating aggression, and to replace it with a sound, sensible foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, human rights, and the self‑determination of all people, including the Venezuelan people."
"This is not foreign policy," PDA said of Trump's aggression. "This is militarized authoritarianism. We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to inflame the entire region, if not the entire globe in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict. We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hakeem Jeffries Pilloried for Putting Pro-Industry Democrats on AI Policy Task Force, Despite Voter Distrust of Big Tech
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said one anti-monopoly expert.
Dec 10, 2025
At a time when the American public, and especially Democratic voters, express overwhelming distrust of artificial intelligence and Big Tech, the top House Democrat is being accused of failing to meet the moment.
On Tuesday, in preparation for an executive order to be signed this week by President Donald Trump, which would seek to block states from implementing new AI regulations, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) unveiled his own effort to cozy up to the industry, whose major players have set aside more than $200 million to push out anti-AI politicians during the 2026 midterms, according to the New York Times.
Jeffries announced the creation of a “House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy,” which will “develop policy expertise in partnership with the innovation community, relevant stakeholders, and committees of jurisdiction.”
What immediately caught the eye of critics was the list of fellow Democrats Jeffries picked to serve on the commission. It will be co-chaired by Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Valerie Foushee (NC), with Reps. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) and Frank Pallone (NJ) serving as ex officio co-chairs.
As Sludge reported Tuesday: "The panel’s leaders rank among the House Democrats with the deepest ties to Big Tech and AI, from holding millions of dollars in tech stock to the contributions they’ve raised for their campaigns and the Republican-backed deregulation bills they've signed onto."
In July, Gottheimer introduced a bill along with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) "that would require financial regulators to create 'AI Innovation Labs' where firms could experiment with AI-driven financial products under looser regulations and without the normal threats of enforcement actions."
Gottheimer is also a major stakeholder in Microsoft, which has invested tens of millions of dollars into AI and nearly $7.5 million on lobbying in 2025 so far. Beyond the almost $100,000 in contributions Gottheimer has received from Microsoft, he is also a former executive who received anywhere from $1 million to $5 million last year from his stock holdings in the company, according to financial disclosure forms. He also frequently trades in other AI power players like Amazon, Meta, and Dell.
Lofgren, meanwhile, has accepted more money from the Internet industry over the course of her career than all but one other current House Democrat—including $265,000 from Google, $115,000 from Apple, and $110,000 from Meta, according to data from OpenSecrets.
In September 2024, Lofgren co-sponsored a bill introduced by Rep. Jay Abernolte (R-Calif.) which "would create a federal 'center for AI advancement and reliability' that it would instruct to work closely with private companies and other stakeholders on developing 'voluntary best practices and technical standards for evaluating the reliability, robustness, resilience, security, and safety of artificial intelligence systems.'"
Foushee, a member of the corporate-backed New Democrat Coalition, rode to Congress in 2022 with more than $1 million from the Protect Our Future political action committee, which was backed by former FTX CEO and convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.
In response to Trump's industry-friendly "AI Action Plan" in July, Foushee and the New Democrats unveiled their own "Innovation Agenda," which called for federal tax credits to companies that "reskill" workers and perform private research and development as well as federal investments in apprenticeships and "labor market data modernization."
Jeffries has neglected to take a position on Trump's proposal to preempt state regulations. Last Monday, he told reporters, "That conversation hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet."
In his statement announcing the Democratic commission on Tuesday, Jeffries said, "It is important that American companies continue to thrive" in the arena of AI, while "at the same time, Congress must consider what policies are needed to prevent bad actors from exploiting this transformative technology and inflicting harm upon the American people." However, he did not specifically mention Trump's pending block on state regulations.
A poll released Friday by the progressive group Demand Progress showed that Americans across the political spectrum are unsettled by AI's influence in Washington: 68% of respondents overall said they were more worried that "the US government will not regulate artificial intelligence enough," as opposed to just 21% who feared too much regulation. While Democrats and independents were somewhat more concerned about underregulation at 71%, Republicans largely shared those fears, with 62% saying they feared the government would not regulate AI enough.
The consensus was even stronger regarding Big Tech's power over AI policy, with 78% of respondents overall saying it had too much influence. This included 81% of Democrats and independents and 74% of Republicans.
With this in mind, many critics were puzzled by Jeffries' decision to stack his AI commission with some of the industry's top allies.
As Aaron Regunberg wrote in the New Republic last month, harnessing anger against the rapid, largely unregulated expansion of expensive, energy-sucking AI data centers was an essential part of Democrats' victories across the board in November's off-year elections:
In New Jersey, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s closing argument was a pledge to freeze electricity rates, which have soared because of data-center demand.
In Virginia, Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger won after pledging to make data centers “pay their own way,” and many Democrats went even further.
At least one candidate, John McAuliff, flipped a seat in the House of Delegates by focusing almost entirely on tying his Republican opponent to the “unchecked growth” of data centers, with an ad that asked, “Do you want more of these in your backyard?”
And in Georgia, Democrats won their first nonfederal statewide races in decades, earning 60% of the vote against two Republican members of the Public Service Commission by criticizing Big Tech “sweetheart deals” and campaigning for policies “to ensure that the communities that they’re extracting from” don’t end up with their “water supplies … tapped out or their energy … maxed out.”
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly expert.
Matt Duss, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), added: "Anticorruption is one of the strongest arguments with the broadest appeal in American politics right now, but the Democratic leadership simply refuses to stop tanking it."
Author Zachary D. Carter said: "I have never seen a gulf this wide between Democratic leadership and the party writ large. The top is corrupt, the base is raging against corruption."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of Democrats, Independents Want Leaders to Fight GOP Attacks on AI Rules
"Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back," said one campaigner.
Dec 05, 2025
A poll published Friday revealed that a majority of Democratic and Independent US voters want congressional Democrats to fight GOP efforts to block states from passing laws regulating artificial intelligence—even as the technology evolves at a speed that has many experts concerned about serious and possibly existential consequences.
The Demand Progress poll of 2,257 likely voters conducted by Tavern Research found that voters across the political spectrum are wary of Big Tech's ability or willingness to ensure safe development of AI, with just 8% of Democratic respondents, 9% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans saying they trust companies to "adequately prioritize safety."
Respondents across the board—81% of Democrats and Independents and 74% of Republicans—also agreed that "large technology companies have too much influence over AI policy."
Although an earlier Republican attempt to slip a 10-year ban on state AI regulation into the massive One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July was shot down in the Senate, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
So far, Trump's most notably robust regulation of artificial intelligence has been his executive order aimed at preventing "woke AI." His other AI-related edicts have rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken under former President Joe Biden to bolster safety.
Last month, Trump signed a directive launching the Genesis Mission, "a new national effort to use artificial intelligence to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery"—even as critics warned that the administration's lax approach to regulation poses safety and structural risks.
As experts urge a more measured approach or even a pause to AI development, 56% of Democratic and 62% of Independent respondents to the new poll want Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to work to block Republicans’ policy to prevent states from regulating AI.
Additionally, 61% of Democratic voters and 68% of Independents said they would be less likely to support a Democratic member of Congress who backed a bill to prevent states from regulating AI. Just 15% of Democrats and 14% of Independents said that they would be more likely to support lawmakers who approve such legislation.
On Monday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the issue, saying that it “hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet.”This isn't enough. Our poll found that voters want to see their congressional leaders fighting back against AI deregulation.
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 6:53 AM
On Monday, Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the Republican effort to ban AI guardrails, arguing that it hasn't yet reached the leadership level. Critics urged him to speak out against the legislation.
“Democratic and Independent voters overwhelmingly want to see Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer fighting Donald Trump and Big Tech’s attempt to ban states from enacting AI safeguards, not back down and compromise,” Demand Progress policy director Emily Peterson-Cassin said in a statement Friday.
“It’s not enough for Leader Jeffries to say that the issue hasn’t been brought to him yet," she added. "Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back.”
Opponents of a more cautious approach to AI development argue that the United States cannot afford to fall behind competitors including China in the rush to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical advanced AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge of any subject as well as or better than a typical human.
The race to AGI and development of AI systems in general is fraught with perils ranging from cybercrime, consumer manipulation, erosion of democracy, and worsening inequality to what many experts warn is the distant but possible threat of uncontrollable AI wiping out humanity.
With so much uncertainty—and even danger—accompanying the unprecedented promise of AI, an increasingly aware public favors caution. Majorities of respondents to poll after poll say they want more, not less, AI regulation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular