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
ted lieu
Rubio Suggests Trump Joined Israel's Planned Attack on Iran Instead of Stopping It
"This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life," said one journalist.
Mar 02, 2026
"What the fuck happened to America First?" US Sen. Ruben Gallego asked on social media Monday in response to a video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempting to justify President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war on Iran.
As the death toll climbed above 550 in Iran, with at least six US service members killed, Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill that "there absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not gonna sit there and absorb a blow before we responded."
According to Rubio, the US Department of Defense assessed that "if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked... by someone else—Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us—we would suffer more casualties and more deaths. We went proactively, in a defensive way, to prevent them from inflicting higher damage. Had we not done so, there would've been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was gonna happen, and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life."
In a follow-up post, Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran, added: "So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First."
The senator wasn't alone in ripping Rubio's remarks. Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.) said that "Secretary Rubio says the quiet part out loud: This is an unnecessary war of choice. Israel forced our hand—there was no imminent threat to the United States. And instead of talking Israel out of going to war, President Trump went along with it and put US lives at risk."
Stanford University political science professor Michael McFaul said: "Such strange logic. We had to go to war because Israel was going to attack Iran? So Bibi gets a say as to whether the US goes to war but the US Senate and the American people do not?"
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan declared: "This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life. Our ally and proxy, Israel, that we arm and fund, was about to illegally attack Iran so we joined in the attack because that illegal attack would have led to an attack on us."
Progressive organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg also weighed in on social media: "Quite literally—and I've used that word too freely in the past, but in this case I mean literally—Rubio is saying they've made America into Netanyahu's bitch. We go where Bibi points, regardless of the American blood it will cost. Trump is an absolute cuck. Pathetic."
While critics of Trump's "Operation Epic Fury" have slammed it as illegal and clearly motivated by regime change, Rubio claimed that the Trump administration would welcome a new government in Iran, but the war—which has taken out top Iranians, including the supreme leader, Ayatollan Ali Hosseini Khamenei—is about preventing the Middle Eastern nation from developing a nuclear weapon.
A year ago, a US intelligence report said that "we continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." Despite that conclusion, the Trump administration bombed the country's nuclear facilities a few months later—and, as CNN's Aaron Blake pointed out last week, Trump has repeatedly said that his June airstrikes "obliterated" Iran's program.
There are now mounting calls for the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives to end Trump's assault on Iran by passing a war powers resolution. Despite the US Constitution giving Congress clear authority to declare war, several presidents have taken military action without any such declaration.
Discussing the administration's interaction with Congress about Iran, Rubio said Monday that "we notified the Gang of Eight," which is made up of the Senate and House leaders for both major parties, as well as the chairs and ranking members of each chamber's intelligence panel. Before taking on his current role, the secretary was the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"There's no law that requires us to do that. The law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We've done that," Rubio said, referring to a requirement in the War Powers Act of 1973. "But we can't notify 535 members of Congress."
"If they want to take a war powers vote, they can do that. They've done that. They’ve done that a bunch of times," he added. "There's no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this... No presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional—not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents."
Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: There is a law. It's called the frickin' Constitution of the United States."
Separately on Monday, the State Department urged Americans to leave a list of Middle Eastern countries.
Lieu responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: You told Americans to depart now via commercial means when you know many airports/airspace are closed. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE US GOVERNMENT EVACUATION FLIGHTS FOR THE STRANDED AMERICANS IN DANGER. Maybe you should have thought of a frickin' plan first."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots '15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego'
"Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics," said former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer.
Feb 21, 2026
Shortly after the US Supreme Court on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, the Republican announced plans for a 10% global import tax under another law. By Saturday, he'd hiked it to 15%.
In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court found that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs." Trump responded by not only lashing out at the justices but also invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a 10% global tariff beginning February 24.
Then, in a Saturday morning Truth Social post, Trump said:
Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been 'ripping' the US off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Critics across the country swiftly blasted the announcement. Democratic strategist Jon Cooper argued that "Trump CANNOT legally impose a 15% global tariff because the US doesn't meet the clear emergency economic conditions envisioned by Section 122. If Trump tries to invoke it, it would certainly face immediate legal challenges, economic pushback, and potential congressional scrutiny."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer declared that "Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics. This is a 15% tax out of YOUR pockets to feed HIS deranged ego."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, similarly said that "Donald Trump just announced a NEW 15% TAX on the American people. He does not care about you."
Another California Democrat, Congressman Ted Lieu, quipped that "crybaby Trump woke up this morning and still feels hurt from the Supreme Court slapping him. So he's taking it out on the American people by increasing his 10% tax increase to 15%. These temporary tariffs will be challenged in court and Democrats will kill them when they expire."
Elected Democrats have often spoken out against Trump's legally dubious duties, but the GOP-controlled Congress hadn't forcefully countered them. As Politico detailed Friday:
Before the ruling, while congressional Republicans had occasionally grumbled about the policy, they had largely fallen in line when actually required to vote on it. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision could put more pressure on them to break with the president...
Six House Republicans voted alongside Democrats last week to condemn Trump's tariffs on Canada, sending the measure to the Senate, which has already seen significant GOP defection in other votes on the duty measures. Senior House Democrats have vowed to bring up at least three more similar resolutions that will force GOP members to choose between their adherence to free trade principles and their MAGA base.
Last week, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, released a report laying out how Trump's economic policies, particularly the tariffs, "are making life unaffordable for millions of American small businesses, their workers, and their customers."
Markey held a virtual press conference with Massachusetts small business owners celebrating the Supreme Court's Friday ruling. The senator said that "for the last year, Trump has created Pain on Main with an affordability crisis plaguing communities across the country. At the heart of it are Trump's tariff taxes."
"The Supreme Court did what was right and struck down these illegal tariffs. Trump said the small businesses who brought this case hate our country. He’s wrong. Small businesses are our country," Markey continued. "I will keep fighting until every cent illegally collected from small businesses, consumers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country has been returned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abomination': Enormous 'Dictatorship-Style' Banner With Trump Face on Side of Justice Department Decried
“It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," said one critic.
Feb 19, 2026
Critics reacted with outrage on Thursday after a large banner featuring President Donald Trump's face was hung on the outside of the US Department of Justice.
The banner shows a large blue banner draped from the side of the department's headquarters in Washington, DC, with the slogan, "Make America Safe Again" written across the bottom.
Although the Trump administration in the past has hung up banners with the president's face on other federal buildings, including the US Department of Labor, many critics were particularly alarmed by a banner going up at the DOJ given how the department has been pursuing criminal prosecutions against his political enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
"This is a stunning confirmation of the grim reality," wrote MS NOW justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, "which is that Donald Trump has seized control of the once independent Justice Department and is using it to pursue his political objectives—including trying to punish his perceived enemies."
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) marveled at "the irony of a twice-impeached, convicted felon putting his own picture on the wall of the Department of Justice," while adding that "President Trump is weaponizing the DOJ as his own personal law firm."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) objected to the banner and reminded his social media followers that "the Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) linked the banner to the ongoing scandal of the DOJ's continued failure to release all files related to the criminal investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"Want more evidence that the Justice Department is covering up the Epstein files to protect Epstein’s best friend Donald Trump?" wrote Lieu. "Look at this photo."
Attorney Brian Farnkoff, a former DOJ official, described the banner as "an abomination and an outrage," while acknowledging it was symbolic of how the president has taken over the department to use as a weapon against his enemies.
David Frum, staff writer at the Atlantic, also said that the symbolism being conveyed by the banner was apt.
"The Trump DOJ is a pure creature of presidential whim, retribution, and cover-up," he wrote, "so this banner has the virtue of candor at least."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the banner showed "Trump is laughing at the idea that the Justice Department is independent of the White House."
"It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," Gilbert added. "It’s also beyond satirical that Trump, who is at the center of numerous current court cases and was convicted of numerous felonies, is splashing his face on the exterior of the Department of Justice."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to run for president in 2028, called the Trump DOJ banner "beyond parody," and asked, "How many dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards do Americans have to endure?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular