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
peace action
Coalition Demands Schumer, Jeffries Step Down Over Failure to Fight 'War-Crazed' Trump
"Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Mar 11, 2026
A coalition of peace groups on Wednesday launched a new national campaign calling for the top Democrats in Congress—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—to resign from their leadership roles, citing their failure to sufficiently fight back "against a war-crazed Trump administration."
The coalition, which includes Peace Action and RootsAction, launched a petition declaring that it is "time for congressional Democrats to replace Schumer and Jeffries with leaders who are willing and able to challenge the runaway militarism that has dragged our country into launching yet another insanely destructive war," this time against Iran.
"Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have not acted to prevent war on Venezuela or the current war on Iran," the petition reads. "They worked to delay a vote on Iran until after the war had started, while failing to clearly oppose it before or after the launch of the war. Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Kevin Martin, president of Peace Action—the largest grassroots peace network in the US—said in a statement that he doubts "at this point whether many people look to Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries for ‘leadership’ in Congress, but we would settle for them getting with the program and representing their base, and the majority of Americans, who want them to stand strongly against Trump’s illegal wars and domestic terror campaigns against the American people."
"They need to speak out loudly and clearly, and get their caucuses in line, to oppose the upcoming $50 billion or more for Trump’s illegal war of aggression on Iran, and to cut off US weapons to Israel," said Martin. "Failing to do so will only increase calls for them to step down or be replaced by colleagues who understand where the American people are on these and other critical issues."
Since the start of the illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran, Schumer and Jeffries have focused largely on procedural objections to the war, the Trump administration's incompetence, and the president's failure to clearly articulate his objectives, rather than explicitly opposing the military onslaught.
In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Jeffries declined to say whether he would oppose the Trump administration's expected push for $50 billion in new funding for the unauthorized war on Iran.
"We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it," Jeffries said, chiding the administration for failing to "make its case as to the rationale or justification for this war of choice in the Middle East."
Sarah Lazare and Adam Johnson wrote for The Nation last week that "it’s not enough to check the box, to do the bare minimum, to reinforce every argument for war only to balk at the process and ask whether there’s a 'plan' for after the myriad war crimes have already been committed."
"The only way to read this half-hearted response from the Democratic Party leadership," they argued, "is de facto support."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Attack Iran? No! We Must Stop This Illegal Act by Trump
It’s getting late, but it’s not yet too late. No war on Iran!
Feb 19, 2026
President Donald Trump seems to think he is King of the World, not just the United States. Even as he convenes his “Board of Peace” (though calling it the “Board of Imperial Conquest” would be more apt) it looks like the US will soon illegally attack Iran, again, as it did last June. Congress needs to do its job representing the will of the American people, get a spine, step up to its Constitutional duty over matters of war and peace, and stop him.
The US has attacked seven countries (eight if one includes the US of A, and most people in Minneapolis and many other cities surely think so) since Trump’s recrudescence. Ongoing talks with Iran do not appear to be promising, with unrealistic US demands, especially zero nuclear energy enrichment by Tehran and the dismantling of its missile program, which would leave it vulnerable to further Israeli attacks. Trump’s "beautiful armada" including two aircraft carrier battle groups with supporting attack aircraft is the largest US military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
This massive (and expensive) deployment of forces is exactly what one does in planning for a large-scale military offensive against Iran, just as the region begins the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. This would go far beyond the more limited strikes that have taken place in the past, including last June’s attack that killed 1,000 people. “It harkens back to what I saw ahead of the 2003 Iraq war,” said retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. “You don’t assemble this kind of power to send a message. In my view, this is what you do when you’re preparing to use it. What I see on the diplomatic front is just to try to keep things rolling until it’s time to actually launch the military operation.”
Lest anyone forget, this crisis is all of Trump's making, as he abrogated the multilateral agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, negotiated under President Barack Obama, which effectively and verifiably capped Iran's nuclear program well short of the ability to build The Bomb.
Trump should not have the last word on whether to attack Iran again. Next week, the House of Representatives will hold a vote on H. Con. Res. 38, the Iran War Powers Resolution, according to the measure's co-sponsor US Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA). US Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY) is the other lead sponsor, and the only Republican on the resolution at present, but a vote could be close, if mostly partisan. Just a few Republican votes could make the difference.
There is no news on a Senate vote at this time, though there is a companion resolution, S. J. Res 104, introduced by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Should the House resolution pass, the Senate vote might ensue quickly, as time is of the essence.
In a recent Quinnipiac poll, 70% of American voters said they oppose military action against Iran. It is time for Congress to fulfill its Constitutional authority and vote to require authorization of any military action against Iran.
It is no surprise the majority of Americans oppose a war with Iran. Similarly, most Iranians oppose a military strike on their country. Now, it’s up to us to demand that Congress do its job and pull us back from the precipice of another disastrous war. Concerned individuals should call their US Representative via the Congressional switchboard at 202.224.3121, or 833-STOP-WAR
Also, on Monday at 2:30pm ET/11:30am PT, peace and constitution-loving people can join a virtual Action Hour on Zoom, where we'll mobilize together to demand Congress stop this unauthorized war before it starts.
The National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC) is organizing this event, co-sponsored by Peace Action & MPower Action, to equip you with immediate action you can take to urge lawmakers to oppose war and stand with the American and Iranian people. We will also be offering a brief "How to Advocate" 101 training to empower you to get face-to-face meetings with your lawmaker's office.
Click here to sign up and join us! us!
It’s getting late, but it’s not yet too late, to stop another illegal war of aggression.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Dragging World Toward a New Nuclear Arms Race
We only have one planet on which to live and time is of the essence.
Feb 03, 2026
Among the critical issues facing our country today, nuclear arms control is seldom top of mind for most people, understandably, given our myriad political, social and economic crises. Recent books and films such as Annie Jacobsen’s 2004 non-fiction tome Nuclear War: A Scenario and last fall’s A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, garnered needed attention for the still-existential threat of nuclear weapons, yet the problem remains mostly absent from our political discourse.
Part of the fault for that lies with President Donald Trump, who while constantly touting his ability to “make deals,” is missing in action on a simple agreement that would make the US and the world safer. New START, the arms control treaty negotiated by President Barack Obama and extended by President Joe Biden, will expire on February 5. However, Russia offered last September a one year, or longer, extension of the treaty’s key limits of 1550 deployed, strategic nuclear warheads and 700 launch systems each.
Trump simply needs to say “Da” (yes) to the Russian proposal, which would cost very little politically at this time. While both countries, along with the seven other nuclear weapons states, are in the midst of dangerous and exorbitant nuclear weapons “modernization” programs, neither are in a position to rapidly exceed the current New START limits, nor should they, for global security and financial reasons. While both countries tout their in-development bombs and missiles that could end most if not all life on Earth, at the cost of more life-affirming investments in human needs and protecting our planet, the reality is these systems, such as the new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), are boondoggles that mostly benefit the financial interests of the large weapons contractors rather than the Common Good.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further.
Then there is Trump’s fantasy of building a “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. Such a chimera is more properly seen as part of a potential offensive nuclear war fighting scheme rather than mere defense; that is if it works, which it is extremely unlikely to do. So it could be a lose-lose-lose scenario, whereby it spurs other countries to deploy more missiles and counter-measures to overcome such a missile “defense;” and it likely would not work to shoot down all incoming missiles (and would be useless against other forms of attack); and it could be used to argue arms control and disarmament treaties are unnecessary, because the shield will protect us, providing a dangerously false sense of security.
One does not need to engage in all the arguments against Golden Dome, or for investing in other, more economically productive pursuits, or think a nuclear weapons-free world is achievable any time soon, to agree that ditching the benefits of New START is a stunningly bad idea at this time.
The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have had a series of treaties limiting and reducing nuclear weapons since 1972. If New START limits go away, we will enter a very dangerous brave new world.
Trump’s famously insatiable ego could be slaked by not only agreeing to the Russian proposal, but by challenging Moscow to initiate new talks to go lower. At the end of the Obama Administration and in its aftermath, there were conflicting claims by the US and Russia on which side whiffed at a chance to go lower, to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads each. So Trump could propose something his nemesis Obama failed to do. Such an agreement might take a sustained period of negotiation, or Trump could do as President George H. W. Bush did in 1991 in announcing a unilateral nuclear weapons cut, which was coordinated with and matched by Russia, with mutually agreed verification procedures.
Trust between Moscow and Washington is low for various reasons, but neither country can afford, politically or economically, to engage in a futile, costly new arms race, and global public reprobation would be deservedly harsh for both countries. And it would further erode any credibility for the US to insist China engage in arms reduction talks regarding its arsenal, which is still much smaller than those of Russia and the US. Even at the height of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and United States competing for global dominance and engaging in deadly “proxy wars” and armed interventions around the globe, the two sides saw the wisdom of not blowing up the planet, and collaborated on a series of treaties that dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals, which made the world safer.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further. Upcoming international review conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) this spring and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) this fall, both at the United Nations in New York, will likely lay the blame for a renewed arms race at his feet.
It is not (yet) too late. A coalition of US peace and disarmament organizations is mobilizing public action to press Congress and the White House to accept the Kremlin’s offer, if not by Thursday’s deadline, then as soon as possible. For more information on how to raise your voice on this critical issue, concerned individuals can consult Peace Action’s FaceBook page.
Time is of the essence. We only have one planet.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular