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
us congress
House Again Votes to Stop Trump’s Iran War—but GOP Senators and Fetterman Sink Similar Resolution
"We cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who introduced the House resolution.
Jul 23, 2026
For the second time in as many months, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to end his illegal war on Iran, but later on Thursday GOP senators and Democrat John Fetterman blocked a similar measure in the upper chamber.
H.Con.Res.89, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and sponsored by 15 Democrats and one Republican, passed by a vote of 214-208, with co-sponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and three other GOP lawmakers—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—breaking ranks to cast "yes" votes.
“Today’s bipartisan vote on my war powers resolution to end this war in Iran was a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war and focus on their lives right here at home," Jayapal said in a statement. "A majority of this Congress voted to end the war yet again, and sent yet another clear order to the president that Congress will not continue to tolerate this illegal war."
"The vote also put pressure on Republicans to stand up for their constituents and the Constitution," the congresswoman continued. "Out of respect for our US servicemembers, civilian lives in Iran and Lebanon, the American taxpayers, and our Constitution, we cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue."
Massie said ahead of Thursday's vote: "American servicemen and women are dying, and gas and fertilizer prices are soaring. It’s time to end this war."
At least 18 US troops have been killed and more than 430 others have been wounded during the 145-day US-Israeli war of choice. Iran's Health Ministry said earlier this week that more than 3,500 Iranians, including at least 496 women and 384 children and infants, have been killed by US and Israeli attacks. More than 26,500 Iranians, including at least 4,000 women and 1,621 children, have been wounded.
Around 30 people have been killed by Iranian counterattacks targeting US-allied Mideast nations, while a simultaneous Israeli war on Lebanon has killed or wounded upward of 15,000 people, according to Lebanese officials.
"Trump needs to end his illegal war now," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said on social media.
Jayapal said in her statement: “From the beginning, this war has had no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal. Congress has not been consulted. And hostilities have been driven over and over again by a president who won his election by promising to end forever wars. This administration has clearly gotten us into a war they have no clue how to get us out of."
Later on Thursday, US senators voted 47-49 against advancing a similar war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote with nearly all Democratic caucus members, while Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined all other present Republicans in voting against the measure. GOP Sens. Katie Britt (Alabama), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.) missed the vote.
"When are Senate Republicans going to stand up?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber floor. "Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war."
Minority Leader @SenSchumer (D-NY) urges GOP to support Iran war powers resolution: "When are Senate Republicans going to stand up? … Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war." pic.twitter.com/XyCTq1TdKj
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2026
During his second term, Trump has ordered US military attacks or operations in Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and a campaign of high-seas boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The self-described "peace president" has ordered attacks on 11 countries through his two terms in office—the aforementioned nations, plus Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan during his first administration.
Trump has also threatened to attack, seize, or acquire by other means Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. He is also reportedly weighing strikes on Mali targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated militants.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limit such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
Congressional Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump’s dubious argument that quitting his negotiated ceasefire with Iran resets the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
The first war powers resolutions passed during Trump's presidency came in 2019, when the House and Senate ordered the president to end unauthorized US military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The Senate subsequently failed to override Trump's veto of the directive.
Last month, both the House and Senate passed resolutions directing Trump to halt his war on Iran. The president has almost entirely ignored the directives, prompting Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)—who authored both an unsuccessful war powers resolution in a bid to stop the US boat bombings and the successful Iran order passed last month—to say Thursday that he will try to sue the administration for failing to obey Congress.
"I'm dropping a resolution today... that we should be suing the administration for not following... the resolution that was passed in both the House and Senate," Meeks told reporters outside the Capitol, where lawmakers are set to go on summer recess.
"When we get back next week, I'm going to force a vote on that, so that we can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Military Spending Request Is Really Big Money
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like.
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump is asking for $1,500,000 million for the military for next year. That’s close to $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) more than we were spending on the military in fiscal year 2025, before Trump took office.
This increase is huge by any measure. It comes to around $4,600 per household. It is around 8% of the total budget. This spending request dwarfs sums that are often the subject of major debates in Washington.
For example, last year Democrats pushed to have the enhanced subsidies in the Affordable Care Act exchanges extended. This would have cost $30 billion a year, one twentieth of what Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are demanding.
People may recall Elon Musk gleefully putting the US Agency for International Development into the “wood chipper” last spring. While ending this program is expected to lead to 4 million additional deaths over the next four years, it only saved around $35 billion a year. That is less than 6% of the increase in military spending that Trump is asking for.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds?
The annual cost of extending the enhanced child tax credit, which cut child poverty in half, was around $100 billion a year, less than one-fifth of Trump’s proposed increase. And the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was $550 million, less than one thousandth of the additional spending for the military that Trump is demanding. (It’s in the chart, just small to see.)
People need to know that Trump’s military spending request is really big money, compared to almost anything else that ever comes up for public debate for Congress. Unfortunately, because of incompetent or corrupt budget reporting, few news accounts make any effort to put these huge numbers in a context that makes them understandable for their audience. As a result, most people will probably have little idea of what is at stake with this military request.
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like. We got along fine with the former level of military spending, which almost everyone, including Donald Trump in his first term, considered adequate.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds? Most of us knew that making our former allies into enemies was not a good idea, but Trump is placing a huge price tag on this mistake. And remember, this is Trump’s own number, not his critics’.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Healthcare System Is Failing; Medicare for All Is the Solution
When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science.
Jul 23, 2026
The following remarks were delivered as testimony to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Medicare for All Shadow Hearing on July 22, 2026.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about our urgent need for Medicare for All. My name is Dr. Diljeet Singh, and as a practicing gynecologic oncologist, I do not exaggerate when I say our healthcare system is in dire straits. Every day in my clinic, I see patients struggling with the cost of healthcare: a woman on chemotherapy who cannot afford her anti-nausea prescription, or a patient forced to choose between an MRI copay and groceries for her family. If you walked through my clinic, you would know that this is no time to be tinkering with unproven reforms or complex regulations. It is long past time for Medicare for All.
I care for a part-time elementary school teacher whose health plan did not cover routine preventive care. Instead of getting regular Pap smears over the years, she arrived in my office with advanced cervical cancer. She underwent radical surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation that fundamentally changed her body and her life—and she still has no guarantee of a cure.
Or consider another patient of mine who works two part-time jobs, with no health insurance. She ignored severe abdominal pain until it doubled her over. In the emergency room, she was told she had a potentially cancerous mass. She came to me for care, and thankfully, it turned out to be a non-cancerous ovarian cyst, cured by surgery. Yet, even in this best-case medical scenario, she still owes thousands of dollars. A treatable, curable medical problem absorbed her children’s college savings and her retirement money.
When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed.
I am speaking to you today as president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization of more than 25,000 health professionals nationwide. We are working to achieve universal single-payer healthcare—free from corporate middlemen, copays, deductibles, prior authorization, and the risk of medical debt. Similar countries around the world provide care to all while spending only half of what we spend—yet we die younger, face higher maternal mortality, and lose more newborns. We already spend enough money, but at least 35 cents of every healthcare dollar is wasted on insurance administration and corporate profit instead of patient care.
The root cause of this failure is the corporate takeover of healthcare, where financial interests take precedence over the sacred oath we swore as physicians—to prioritize our patients’ health and make evidence-based, patient-centered decisions free from third-party interference.
At PNHP, we conducted a two-year research project speaking with doctors about working in a profit-driven system where financial goals dictate clinical care. We found that doctors, like nurses, suffer from profound “moral injury”—the acute psychological harm caused by systemic barriers that prevent us from providing compassionate, evidence-based care. When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed, driving clinicians out of medicine in increasing numbers.
Reversing this crisis requires recentering healthcare on patients and aligning with its true mission. The most commonsense solution is single-payer Medicare for All. When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science and their healthcare needs—not corporate bottom lines.
Doctors, nurses, and patients understand that we need Medicare for All. Now we need Congress to understand the same thing—and to act with all of the urgency that this moment requires.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Are Closer Than We Think to Losing Our Wild Neighbors
You do not need to fire a shot to kill an animal and imperil its entire species’ existence—you only need to take away the place it lives. A Trump administration Endangered Species Act rollback would do just that.
Jul 23, 2026
There is a vision of this country that still exists to anyone who grew up near its wild places: manatees drifting beneath a dock, Florida leafwing butterflies fluttering through the wind, yellow-billed cuckoos migrating in the spring and fall. For generations of Americans, these were not rare sightings. They were proof that people and wildlife could share the same natural inheritance
That inheritance is now under direct threat, and the erosion is no longer incremental. It is accelerating at an unprecedented pace.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration formally rescinded the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—a single word that has helped to protect this nation's imperiled wildlife for more than 50 years. For decades, "harm" was understood to include not just the direct killing or injuring of an endangered animal, but the destruction or degradation of the habitat that animal depends on to breed, feed, migrate, or shelter. That understanding was not a bureaucratic technicality. It was the legal recognition of a basic ecological truth: An animal cannot survive the loss of its home and its resources for daily living any more than a person can. Each of these species has a story that will end the same way without habitat protection: not a quick death by bullet but a slow death by a thousand cuts.
Remove that definition, and you remove the government's ability to regulate clear-cutting old growth forest filled with an endangered bird’s nesting sites, draining a wetland key for an endangered frog’s breeding, or dumping pollution into the lagoon where sea turtles and marine mammals graze. You do not need to fire a shot to kill an animal and imperil its entire species’ existence. You only need to take away the place it lives.
Habitat destruction is already the leading driver of species decline in the US, and this rollback removes one of the few legal tools available to slow it.
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 with overwhelming bipartisan support, and Republican President Richard Nixon signed it, "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved." In the more than five decades since, the ESA has prevented the extinction of an estimated 99% of the species placed under its protection—one of the most successful conservation records in the world.
Rescinding the definition of harm will eviscerate the ESA. And it does so under the pretense of streamlining obstacles to American economic growth, as if the nation's economy runs on oil, gas, logging, and mining alone. But our national economy—and our national welfare—are inextricably linked to healthy, thriving wildlife and habitats. Wildlife watching, for example, supports a $250.2 billion industry in the US. Commercial and recreational fisheries generate $319 billion in sales and sustain 2.1 million jobs. Hunting and fishing support $400 billion in annual economic value. And the ecosystem services nature provides for free—clean water, crop pollination, flood control, pest suppression—are valued at an estimated $5 trillion a year.
Habitat destruction is already the leading driver of species decline in the US, and this rollback removes one of the few legal tools available to slow it.
Consider the Florida manatee, listed as threatened under the ESA. Manatees lack blubber and cannot fully regulate their own body temperature; in winter, their survival depends on access to water near 72°F. Coastal development and polluted runoff have devastated the seagrass beds manatees depend on and degraded the natural springs that once kept them warm through the winter. More than half of Florida's manatees now survive only because they cluster near the artificial warm-water discharge of aging power plants. Without the harm definition, it will be exponentially harder to protect and restore their foraging and sheltering habitats they need to survive and recover.
The same pattern will repeat across the country. The North American wolverine depends on vanishing high-elevation snowpack at risk of being lost to development and expanding winter recreation. The whooping crane, one of the rarest birds in North America, needs undisturbed wetland corridors to complete its migration. In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, polar bears depend on undisturbed denning sites; seismic testing, vehicle traffic, and aircraft noise associated with oil exploration can cause mother bears to abandon their dens and cubs. For five decades, the ESA enabled economic activities in the habitats species need to survive and recover, with permitting guardrails to ensure adequate protections. Now that the administration has eliminated those guardrails, it’s open season for industry to sacrifice habitat—and the future of our imperiled wildlife species. Defenders of Wildlife, along with other conservation organizations, has already gone to federal court to challenge this unlawful action.
At the same time, we’re standing up to defend the ESA itself from anti-wildlife members of Congress who favor unfettered logging, mining, grazing, and drilling, no matter the cost to endangered animals—or to our irreplaceable natural heritage. One of the most effective actions concerned citizens can take right now is to call their representative and senators and oppose any effort to undermine this bedrock wildlife law.
We are closer than most people realize to losing the manatees in our canals, the whooping cranes in our wetlands, and the wolverines in our mountains. What remains to be seen is whether we act while there is still habitat left to save.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Renews Assault on Iran, Dems Prepare Another War Powers Resolution
Congress already passed one resolution last month, but Trump has defied it, claiming that his latest attacks are part of a new war against Iran.
Jul 22, 2026
Democrats introduced another war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday that they hope will strengthen their efforts to stop President Donald Trump from continuing to escalate his war with Iran.
Both houses of Congress already passed a war powers resolution in June, but it was not signed by Trump and lacked the force of law.
Trump has refused to comply with its order to withdraw troops from hostilities in the region, claiming that his renewed attacks on Iran this month constitute a new conflict that resets the 60-day countdown before Congress can intervene.
According to Politico, Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expects the resolution to come to the floor for a vote on Thursday, just before Congress adjourns for a five-week summer recess.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday, is expected to have the support of every Democrat, as well as Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted for the last resolution.
A co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), said on Wednesday that Democrats, as well as these "Republicans of courage and conscience," were united in their goal of sending "a message that this war has got to stop."
Jayapal said recent developments, including the deaths of four US soldiers over the past week, had raised the urgency of ending the war now.
"This war has killed 18 US service members, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and displaced millions of civilians," she noted.
A new resolution may also strengthen a separate effort by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who is planning to introduce legislation that would block any additional federal funding for attacks against Iran not authorized by Congress. He also said he was preparing a lawsuit challenging Trump's continuation of the war without congressional approval, which he has called "legally baseless."
As the administration requests tens of billions more in military spending in order to fund the war, Democrats in the Senate last week blocked debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday with limited Democratic support, though it did not contain the separate Iran War funding package.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Urge Senate to Reject Israel Military Integration in NDAA Passed by House
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
Jul 22, 2026
The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted Wednesday in favor of a record $1.15 trillion military spending authorization bill containing a highly controversial provision to increase cooperation between the US and Israeli armed forces.
House lawmakers voted 216-212, almost entirely along party lines, to pass HR 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027.
Republicans voted 209-7 in favor, while Democrats voted 205-6 against the measure. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) voted "yes." Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California also voted in favor of the bill.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) submitted an amendment to strip Section 219—which would integrate American and Israeli research and development—from the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday called the NDAA "an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
Massie said that "our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now."
On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) described Section 219 as "an outrageous threat to our country's security and autonomy."
"Americans want no part in Netanyahu's genocidal regime," she added, referring to fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Congress cannot continue to bankroll Israel's campaign of terror. Voting NO."
However, the House Rules Committee blocked debate on the proposal, which remains in the legislation.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," Khanna said.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, also remains in the legislation. The measure would “expand and enhance intelligence sharing” with Israel, and limit restrictions on such cooperation.
As controversial as 219 is, the primary driver of Democratic opposition to the NDAA was Republican leadership's use of a procedural rule to automatically merge the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act into the military spending package. The legislation—which has been strongly pushed by President Donald Trump—mandates proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Democrats heavily opposed attaching a controversial voting measure to a must-pass national security bill.
An amendment that would have made Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the US military permanent was narrowly defeated as Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Mike Lawler (NY), along with GOP Delegates Kimberlyn Kay King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands and James Moylan of Guam, broke ranks with their party and voted against it.
The proposed NDAA now goes to the Senate, where upper chamber lawmakers will consider their own version of the legislation.
"Americans are saying loudly and clearly: No more US military support for the extremist Netanyahu government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after the House vote. "That is why Congress must vote NO on the defense spending bill, which brings the US and Israeli militaries even closer together."
This article has been updated with the correct vote breakdowns.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress: Protect Working People's Retirement From Risky Tech Cos Like SpaceX
Index providers play a prominent role in millions of working peoples’ retirement security, but they are largely unregulated. This needs to change.
Jul 22, 2026
Millions of working people keep their hard-earned money in low-cost index funds to secure a dignified retirement and meet other financial goals. In choosing index funds, these everyday investors assume financial industry intermediaries, regulators, and lawmakers are working to keep this investment strategy a safe and conservative one.
But the infrastructure that has historically given index fund investors this sense of security is eroding. Index providers, exchanges, and asset managers are all changing their policies and practices in ways that weaken investor protection to the benefit of executives, directors, and other corporate insiders, just in time for several Silicon Valley companies hitting the market.
Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is turning away from its investor protection mission to protect corporate insiders, and states are weakening investor protection tools to convince corporate management to pick them as their state of incorporation.
SpaceX provides a clear example. Elon Musk’s company went public in June at a sky-high valuation divorced from the company’s fundamentals. Mega AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI are also expected to go public soon.
Should we face another financial crisis or drastic market correction, Congress must not bail out corporate insiders or other powerful financial players that benefited from inflating the bubble and instead focus on protecting regular investors, families, and communities.
Traditionally, the major indices have required companies’ stock to trade publicly for a length of time to establish their financial stability before adding them to an index. But nearly all the major index providers have recently changed their rules to fast-track SpaceX and other large, recently public companies. (Notably, the S&P held the line after pressure from House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the AFL-CIO, and my organization—Americans for Financial Reform.)
The fast-tracking by the Russell 3000, the Nasdaq 100, and other major indices sets the stage for deep-pocketed early investors to cash out while leaving retirement savers holding the bag in the likely event the company’s share price comes down to better reflect the company’s actual viability.
To make matters worse, most SpaceX investors will have little redress in the event they are harmed by wrongdoing on the part of the company, Musk, or other insiders. SpaceX is trying to ban class actions and force lawsuits into Texas Business Court or arbitration (both notoriously insider-friendly fora).
SpaceX was able to include a forced arbitration provision in its IPO deal after the SEC made an about-face, effectively allowing companies to block a powerful tool to combat corporate fraud and misconduct.
SpaceX is also taking advantage of Texas corporate law provisions that make it exceedingly difficult to bring claims under state law to hold corporate insiders accountable for wrongdoing.
In the meantime, regular shareholders are being denied the opportunity to provide meaningful input. Musk retains 85% voting power in a multi-class share structure where holders of one class of shares have 10 times the voting rights of shares available to the public.
One of the more disturbing implications of this structure: Only Musk can fire himself.
Meanwhile, as massive AI companies are seeking to go public, the SEC has proposed rules that would permit SpaceX and other large companies to make significantly fewer disclosures compared with what large public companies are currently required to make.
To protect working families’ retirement funds, Congress and financial regulators need to step in. Index providers play a prominent role in millions of working peoples’ retirement security, but they are largely unregulated. This needs to change. Relatedly, asset managers of index funds need to be further regulated so they do not effectively outsource their responsibilities to largely unregulated index providers or use their voting power to rubber-stamp management decisions.
We also need to curb the power of corporate insiders, who call the shots on where a company is incorporated and on which exchanges they’re listed, by setting a federal floor that protects long-term investors and workers.
Congress should also set more stringent requirements for the SEC so it doesn’t lose sight of its mission to protect investors, including by mandating robust disclosures; disallowing forced arbitration; having a more public, thorough process for reviewing the paperwork companies need to file before they can go public; and eliminating or sharply curtailing the SEC’s authority to exempt regulated entities from requirements.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently warned that today’s bullish stock market feels like 2007, when the country was on the brink of a financial crash. When that crash hit, working people wound up bearing the brunt of the crisis while Wall Street banks and their corporate clients got bailed out.
Should we face another financial crisis or drastic market correction, Congress must not bail out corporate insiders or other powerful financial players that benefited from inflating the bubble and instead focus on protecting regular investors, families, and communities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Must Cut Off Funding': House Dem Readies Legal Action and New Bill to Halt Trump's Iran War
Rep. John Larson said members of Congress must "take every available legal action to end it before more Americans are killed."
Jul 21, 2026
Democratic Rep. John Larson said late Monday that he is preparing legal action against the Trump administration and a new bill to cut off funding for the US war on Iran, which was launched without congressional authorization nearly five months ago and has intensified in recent days following the collapse of a ceasefire deal.
Larson (D-Conn.) said he would file a lawsuit "challenging the administration’s continued prosecution of the war without congressional approval," pointing to President Donald Trump's cynical attempt to evade limits imposed by the War Powers Act of 1973.
"The administration’s claim that recent developments constitute a new conflict and restart what they consider to be a 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution is nothing more than a legally baseless attempt to evade Congress and circumvent the Constitution," Larson's office said in a press release.
The Connecticut Democrat, who has called for Trump's impeachment over the illegal war, said he would also introduce legislation aimed at prohibiting any additional federal funding for unauthorized attacks on Iran as the White House and congressional Republicans seek tens of billions more for the war—and as the Trump administration reportedly plans to widen its assault, potentially involving ground troops.
“While Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans continue to do Trump’s bidding instead of defending Congress' constitutional authority, more American servicemembers are paying the price with their lives," Larson said in a statement. "Congress cannot continue to sit on its hands. We must cut off funding for this illegal war and take every available legal action to end it before more Americans are killed."
Last month, the House and Senate—both controlled by Republicans—passed a resolution calling on Trump to remove US forces from conflict with Iran, but the measure lacked the force of law. The president has since reimposed a naval blockade on Iran and resumed a massive bombing campaign that, since its inception in late February, has killed thousands, wreaked havoc on the global economy, and driven up costs for Americans.
With Trump ignoring congressional war powers efforts, Democrats and advocacy organizations committed to stopping the war on Iran have shifted their focus to blocking military funding to exert pressure on Republicans and the Trump administration. Last week, Senate Democrats blocked the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) over the Iran war.
The House is expected to vote on its version of the NDAA as soon as Wednesday. Republicans on the House Rules Committee rejected a proposed Democratic amendment last week that would have barred future Pentagon funds from being used for the war on Iran.
"NOBODY in Congress that passed the historic Iran War Powers Resolution should vote to give ONE CENT to Trump and Hegseth's Pentagon without a signed Iran peace deal," the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy wrote in a social media post late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No to War': Iranian Civil Society Issues Call for Peace as US Assault Intensifies
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life."
Jul 20, 2026
As the US ramps up its assault against Iran with daily bombings and threatens a full ground invasion, hundreds of public figures from across Iranian civil society issued an urgent call for peace on Sunday.
Two hundred sixty-eight prominent Iranians—including political activists, academics, former members of Parliament, religious figures, labor leaders, and others—signed a joint declaration calling for a "complete and unconditional end of war, and the cessation of all threats, incitement to hatred, and warmongering."
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life," the statement says. "Therefore, since no decision should be imposed upon the country against the will of its people... we firmly remind all governments, military forces involved in the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and all members of the international community that violating this fundamental right of the Iranian people is a grave injustice against a nation that does not want war and stands for peace."
"Despite all our differences, we raise our collective voice to say 'No to War,'" the letter continued. "We sincerely call upon all our fellow Iranians—regardless of gender, political or ideological beliefs, religion, ethnicity, or any other distinction—to join this call and strengthen its echo by adding their voices."
The declaration ends with a quote from the 13th-century Persian poet Saadi Shirazi: "Even if you possess the strength of an elephant or the claws of a lion, to me, peace is still better than war."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) emphasized the "breadth of the signatories," which span large swaths of political opinion and reflect "a rare convergence across Iran’s deeply fragmented political landscape."
Among the signatories are Kak Hassan Amini, a Sunni activist; Faezeh Hashemi, a former member of Iran's Parliament and the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; teachers' labor rights activist Maryam Kabiri; former Parliament members Elaheh Koulaei and Parvaneh Salahshouri; and former Central Bank Gov. Valiollah Seif.
The letter comes as the US has conducted nine consecutive nights of bombings following a short-lived truce in June. Earlier strikes targeted areas around the Strait of Hormuz—which Iran again sealed off as June's memorandum of understanding collapsed.
In recent days, US strikes have begun to creep inland. In addition to military infrastructure, the US has attacked facilities relied upon by civilians, including bridges, roads, a train station, an airport, and energy infrastructure.
In retaliation for strikes that killed two US service members in Jordan over the weekend, the US launched another round of strikes on Monday that struck the construction site of a planned nuclear power plant, according to Iran's atomic energy agency.
Iranian authorities have said that at least 50 people have been killed and at least 517 wounded in the latest round of US strikes. At least 3,500 Iranians have been killed since the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February, including more than 1,700 confirmed civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).
At least 17 US troops have been killed since the war began, with Iran's strikes in Jordan killing 25-year-old 1st Lt. James Feehan and 19-year-old Pvt. Isabella Gonzales over the weekend. Another soldier has also gone missing and has not yet been publicly identified.
President Donald Trump vowed in a social media post on Monday that "every time Iran kills an American Soldier” going forward “they will pay for that killing many times over.”
With Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz once again causing global oil prices to soar, the Trump administration is reportedly mulling a full-scale ground invasion of Kharg Island and areas of coastline near the strait, which experts have warned would require hundreds of thousands of American troops and likely lead to many more casualties.
Democrats in Congress responded to the deaths of two more US soldiers by renewing calls to end the conflict.
"These brave troops gave their lives in service to our nation," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "How many more must die for Trump’s war of choice?"
Trump's escalations come despite the US House of Representatives and Senate passing a war powers resolution last month that directed him to withdraw troops from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says He’s the Most Powerful Man Ever: He Is, and That’s a Big Worry
President Donald J. Trump’s “sole authority” to launch the US nuclear arsenal, which could kill billions of people and destroy life on Earth as we know it, means that he is the most powerful man ever; this should be of profound concern.
Jul 20, 2026
As William Perry, former secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, and Tom Collina state in The Button: “Within minutes, with just one phone call, President Trump could unleash up to a thousand nuclear weapons, each one many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. It would be the end of civilization... For President Trump, starting nuclear war is about as easy as sending a tweet.”
US policy, which invests “sole authority” in the president to launch nuclear weapons, crystallizes the utter absurdity of the nuclear predicament that we have lived under for 81 years. Contrary to popular belief, there is no “button.” Instead, there is a military aide, who carries a 40-plus pound briefcase, referred to as the “nuclear football” (officially called the Presidential Emergency Satchel), which follows the president 24/7/365, whenever he is away from fixed command centers. The fact that the president can use the football to launch US nuclear weapons at any moment, day or night—without having to consult or listen to anyone—beggars belief. Clearly, the ability to start a nuclear war that could destroy most life on Earth should not be entrusted to one person, especially one known to be erratically capriciousness and highly unstable.
Inside the nuclear football is a secure communications device that allows the president to order a launch, as well as a “Black Book,” outlining pre-planned presidential options for targets, delivery systems, and estimated casualties. It originally contained a heavy set of war plans, but after Jimmy Carter complained that it was too complicated for the extremely short time frame, it was simplified into a menu of strike options for either limited strikes or full retaliation, presented as a “one-page, cartoon-like menu.” One of Clinton’s aides quipped that it was like a “Denny’s breakfast menu.”
There is also a small laminated card, called the “biscuit,” with unique codes which are used to establish the president’s identity. If the president were to decide on a nuclear launch, he would read the codes over secure communications to the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon or one of its alternates. Once authenticated, the president's will is converted into a “highly encrypted, time-sensitive message called the Emergency Action Message, which includes the authentication codes, the strike option, timing details, and the codes to unlock the weapons.” It is then transmitted by the US Strategic Command Headquarters located in a bunker under the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, again by secure communication, to land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launch control centers, ballistic missile submarines, and air force strategic bombers, each with their own authentication and launch procedures. A full nuclear launch order can be executed in 5-15 minutes.
The only way to truly overcome the total absurdity of the incredibly reckless situation that we have created for ourselves during the nuclear age is to recognize the danger and to collectively “get our act together” to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Presidents often keep the biscuit in a pocket, which has presented problems: Carter inadvertently sent his to the dry cleaners in a suit pocket; Clinton lost it altogether for several months. When Ronald Reagan was taken to hospital after an assassination attempt, he was stripped of clothing and the biscuit was later found by the FBI in a hospital trash can.
Once the nuclear football is opened, the president would have less than 10 minutes to absorb the information inside, review the options, and make a decision. Other sources suggest it would be six minutes. As Reagan lamented: “Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon? How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?”
Indeed, there have been concerns about several presidents during the nuclear age: John F. Kennedy was on heavy pain medication for back pain; Richard Nixon was drinking too much due to the strain of the Watergate investigations. (At one point, he threatened, “I can go back in my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes, 70 million people will be dead.”) Lyndon B. Johnson alternated between manic energy and bouts of gloominess. At the end of their terms, Reagan had early-stage Alzheimer’s and Joe Biden’s clarity of thinking has also been questioned. But of all the 14 presidents who have been in office in the nuclear age, Trump’s stability has been the most extensively questioned. As reported by The New York Times, “Never before in modern times has the stability of a president been so publicly and forensically debated—and with such profound consequences.”
Most presidents had previous experience with nuclear issues: 9 of 14 had military experience before taking office; five served as vice president; several served in other parts of the executive branch; and more than half, in Congress. Trump had none of this prior experience.
When Trump took charge of the nuclear football for a second time in 2025, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who had previously introduced legislation to Congress against “sole authority,” stated:
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress’ constitutional role is respected and fulfilled. We must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human.
Upon receiving a nuclear briefing just before their inauguration, presidents are often horrified by the awesome responsibility. Dwight D. Eisenhower was “visibly shaken”; Kennedy asked, “And we call ourselves the human race?” Carter recounted that, as president, the horror “was constantly on my mind.” George H.W. Bush stated, “I had no idea we had so many weapons... What do we need them for?” Barack Obama told a close adviser, it was “one of the most sobering experiences of my life.” Trump said, “a very sobering moment... very, very scary.” But as Perry and Collina comment, “While that statement might sound reassuring, Trump also asked, on several occasions [during his first term] ‘If we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?’”
Indeed, during both terms, Trump has occasionally appeared to threaten their use. In 2017, when he and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, were in a tense standoff, Trump said: “North Korea, best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” When Kim boasted that his nuclear button is “always on my table,” Trump tweeted in return, “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is much bigger & more powerful than his, and my Button works!”
During the current ongoing war with Iran, Trump has also made a number of extremely ominous threats, the worst of which was probably on April 7 when he posted on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
Following this post, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to the White House physician on April 10, citing the above comments and requesting an evaluation of Trump due to “signs consistent with dementia and cognitive decline” and “increasingly incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening tantrums.” No answer was received.
On April 14, Raskin submitted legislation to Congress to establish a nonpartisan “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office.” Such a mechanism is allowed by the 25th Amendment as an alternative to the vice president and Cabinet deciding whether the president should be removed from office (which is currently unlikely since Trump’s Cabinet members were selected because of their extreme loyalty). The legislation is still in committee.
On June 18, Raskin again wrote to the White House physician demanding that he comply with his previous request; provide a complete list of all medications and dosages; identify each of the 22 medical providers and their specialty that Trump saw during his May 26 examination at Walter Reed; and publicly release the complete results of this visit—again, without response.
Although the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater Rule” forbids psychiatrists from offering public opinions about the diagnosis and mental health status of public figures they have not examined, many have argued that the rule is poorly conceived and that there is an overriding “duty to warn.” In this spirit, a group of 36 senior neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, general psychiatrists, and mental health professionals experienced in the diagnosis of cognitive disorders and evaluation of dangerousness, who had signed an earlier statement in 2024, issued an update on April 30 of this year.
They cited examples of Trump’s “marked deterioration in cognitive functioning, evidenced by disorganized and tangential speech, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, episodes of apparent somnolence during crucial public proceeding. Grandiose and delusional beliefs, including assertions of infallibility... claims that his decision-making authority is unlimited—with no need to consider domestic and international laws and constrained only by his ‘own morality.’ Severely impaired judgment and impulse control... Significant loss of self-control (disinhibition) and getting stuck on the same thoughts or actions, unable to let go or move on (perseveration), including seemingly compulsive, manic-like late-night communications—e.g., 150 social media posts in one night.”
They conclude:
It is our professional opinion that the behaviors of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theater. It is our professional opinion that they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline... For the reasons cited above, emphasizing that he presents a clear and present danger to our country and to the world, it is our expert opinion that Donald J. Trump is mentally unfit to be the president of the United States, and that steps to remove him from office must be undertaken with the greatest urgency.
On six occasions since 2016, Markey and Lieu have introduced legislation entitled the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, which would reallocate the responsibility for launching nuclear weapons from the president to Congress when the US is not being attacked. It would require Congress to explicitly approve any first nuclear strike by the US before federal money could be spent on the attack. So far it has not been adopted.
If the Democratic Party wins a majority in the next Congress, the Markey and Lieu bill or Raskin’s bill could be passed. If the latter is adopted, the use of Article 25 might become politically possible. Alternatively, it is also remotely conceivable that Trump could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. But the concern remains as to whether this is soon enough to spare the world the possible use of Trump’s “sole authority”—given his deteriorating cognitive abilities.
Of course, the only way to truly overcome the total absurdity of the incredibly reckless situation that we have created for ourselves during the nuclear age is to recognize the danger and to collectively “get our act together” to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
As Jonathan Schell sums up in The Fate of the Earth: “The machinery of destruction is complete, poised on a hair trigger, waiting for the ‘button’ to be ‘pushed’ by some misguided or deranged human being or for some faulty computer chip to send out the instruction to fire. That so much should be balanced on so fine a point—that the fruit of four and a half billion years can be undone in a careless moment—is a fact against which belief rebels.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy