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
The Farm Bill Is a Health Bill
It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Aug 09, 2026
Wanìshi means thank you in the Lenape language. This is the lyrical word we recently had the privilege of learning from a principal emissary from the Piscataway Indian Nation, and experiencing together. Wanìshi for the quiet moments between hard conversations and watching sunsets, where we shared in the spirit of collaboration, together with 18 other thinkers and doers who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of public agriculture policy, and its historically principal vehicle, the Farm Bill.
We embraced and shared in this collaborative mindset over the three days we spent with the America the Beautiful for All Coalition’s Legacy Lands workgroup in Maryland. The Farm Bill was one of the issues we discussed. A bill currently being treated by politicians as technical, as boring, as someone else's problem. When in our realities, it is none of those things. The Farm Bill decides who eats and who doesn't. It decides who is healthy and whose health is negotiable.
Between us, we have spent a combined five decades serving the communities this bill affects: rural families losing food, farmworkers losing protections, Black farmers losing land, tribal nations losing voice. So at that convening, and with this piece, we are expressing plainly a reality every farmer, rancher, and all of us who steward land intimately know. That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people. We do not view the content of the draft as a public health crisis because we have been trained to view it as agricultural policy. But it is, in fact, a public health crisis, and that crisis has a physical address: every community where conservation funding has been cut and every family living downstream of the farms and lands that lost it.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on the Fourth of July last year, cut $187 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). More than 4.5 million people have lost their food assistance since then. In rural counties where the nearest grocery store is a 40-minute drive and the nearest doctor is farther, losing SNAP is not a policy change. It is a sentence. It means a child eating less, and then eating worse, and then showing up in an emergency room that is itself understaffed and underfunded. The Senate Farm Bill draft does not restore a single dollar.
That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Both versions of the new bill cut funding for the conservation programs that keep farmland productive and water clean. The Senate draft alone slashes nearly $2 billion from EQIP, the program that helps small farmers put cover crops in, manage nutrients, and protect water. When those programs shrink, the runoff increases. Babies, adults, pets, and wildlife in the communities downstream all drink that water.
The agency responsible for delivering conservation to farmers is disappearing. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) lost nearly a quarter of its staff in one year. One hundred and forty-one counties went from having NRCS employees to having none. These were the people who helped farmers manage nutrients, reduce fertilizer runoff, and protect water. In their absence, nitrate from agricultural runoff enters rural drinking water unchecked. Research links nitrate contamination to colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and birth defects in newborns, at levels below what the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. The communities drinking that water are the same small rural towns that just lost their NRCS offices. A beginning farmer in southern Georgia or a small rancher in northern New Mexico picks up the phone and no one answers. Their neighbors downstream drink what runs off the fields no one is helping them manage.
For Latino communities across the rural West, acequias, the community irrigation systems that have sustained families for centuries, depend on the conservation programs this bill is cutting. A farmer in the San Luis Valley who has irrigated land the way her family has for six generations does not experience a conservation cut as a line item. She experiences it as a ditch that doesn't flow, a garden that doesn't grow, a family that buys what it used to harvest.
Black families once farmed 16 million acres in this country. Today they hold barely over 1%. Heirs' property, land passed down without clear title, is one of the mechanisms through which that loss continues: A single partition sale can erase a century of family ownership in an afternoon. The families who lose their land don't just lose wealth. They lose the foundation for food sovereignty, the one asset that could have fed a family, a neighborhood, a generation. A deed problem becomes a health problem, passed down the same way the land was supposed to be.
As we watch this Farm Bill, we carry with us the word our Piscataway colleague shared. Wanìshi. Thank you. We offer it now in the spirit of collaboration.
We will offer it again, in the spirit of gratitude, when Congress writes this bill for all of us.
We are waiting.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Each President Is a Temporary Tenant': DC Appeals Court Orders Halt to Trump Ballroom Construction
"The president has no... constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Aug 07, 2026
A federal court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump must halt most construction of his $400 million White House ballroom project, siding with a lower court that said it must be authorized by Congress.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” wrote judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in a 2-1 decision for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "The president has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Friday’s ruling only affects the above-ground portions of the project. The construction of a fortified underground bunker and other “national security facilities” beneath the site is allowed to continue.
Trump has already demolished the East Wing of the White House to make room for the project, which he has said will be entirely privately funded, mostly by corporate donors, many of whom had business before the executive branch. However, reporting from The Washington Post in June revealed that he had secretly planned to dip into $300 million worth of taxpayer dollars for the project.
At Trump's urging, Republicans have attempted to add $1 billion in taxpayer money to the federal budget to pay for the project's security features, but the proposal to pass it through budget reconciliation without approval from Democrats was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian.
The court's majority said it’s ruling “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy… What it does mean is that the defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”
Brent Leggs, the CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued to block the ballroom’s construction in December, said Friday was “a great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”
"The White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people," he said.
Trump reacted with predictable fury on Truth Social.
"We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court," he wrote. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents."
The ruling is the second blow to one of Trump’s vanity projects this week. A report by the National Park Service recently found that his planned “Arc de Trump” near the National Mall could compromise the historical significance and "integrity" of dozens of other historic landmarks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Introduces 'Data Center Bill of Rights' For Communities Seeking to Oppose Them
The congressman from Silicon Valley said his resolution aims to give communities "the right to oppose data centers instead of having them shoved down their throats by state governments."
Aug 06, 2026
The congressman from Silicon Valley, Rep. Ro Khanna, is introducing one of the first comprehensive federal frameworks to give seething communities the right to fight back against Big Tech and its breakneck expansion of artificial intelligence data centers.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who announced the plan on Thursday, referred to it as a "Data Center Bill of Rights" and said it will aim to give communities "the right to oppose data centers instead of having them shoved down their throats by state governments."
Opposition to data centers has become a central plank in some progressive campaigns that have seen success in recent months, most recently the Democratic primary victories of Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and House candidate William Lawrence in Michigan.
They and other candidates have called for moratoriums on the construction of these facilities, which have come with soaring utility costs, dwindling water supplies, and pollution.
A nonbinding resolution introduced by Khanna earlier this week emphasized that developers have often made deals with state and local governments under a shroud of secrecy, with nondisclosure agreements that hide information about the ownership and potential costs of data centers until it's too late for the public to fight back.
Among other provisions, the resolution calls for Congress to give communities the right to:
- Ban the construction of data centers within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, childcare facilities, hospitals, or nursing homes;
- Reject any proposed data center through a transparent community process;
- Prohibit or regulate data centers without being overridden by the state government;
- Receive independent assessments on a center’s electricity and water demands, pollution dangers, and potential effects on utility bills, rents, and housing availability;
- Demand that centers do not raise electricity rates for households and businesses; and
- Require that data center owners pay their fair share of taxes and that any exemptions come with strong labor standards and transparency.
Khanna's proposal comes as he says the developers seeking to hyperscale data center development are "losing the country."
A Gallup poll from May found that more than 7 in 10 Americans would either somewhat or strongly oppose the construction of a data center near them.
And while the Trump administration has pushed hard for rapid development, opposition is bipartisan. Three-quarters of Democrats say they don't want the facilities in their communities, but so do nearly two-thirds of Republicans.
Khanna's resolution is one of many legislative pushes by Democrats on Capitol Hill to regulate data centers, an issue on which they are eager to build credibility ahead of this November's midterms.
Also on Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, proposed an excise tax on data centers and to stop them from benefiting from tax-advantaged "opportunity zones," which Republicans extended last year.
Other proposals have gone further than Khanna's. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced legislation earlier this year for a nationwide moratorium on new data centers until national safeguards can be put in place.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Vacation Nation': Analysis Shows US Workers Getting Shafted When It Comes to Paid Time Off
The US is still the only developed country that doesn't require any paid vacation time by law.
Aug 05, 2026
Though they may work in the land of the free, Americans are getting a lot less free time than their counterparts around the world.
The US is the only developed nation that doesn't require employers to grant workers any paid vacation time. And according to a report out Wednesday, the average American is receiving less time off than what many of their peers consider the bare minimum.
Twenty-five countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) require employers to grant at least 20 days of paid time off to their workers.
Workers in the UK are guaranteed at least 28 days of lounging each year by law, while those in Sweden, France, Denmark, and Austria get a minimum of 25 days off.
Americans, meanwhile, are receiving just 10 vacation days per year on average, according to the analysis, titled "No Vacation Nation," by John Schmitt, a fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
That is the bare minimum for countries ranking at the bottom of the OECD list, Japan and Canada, which each require full-time workers to get at least 10 days off.
And the Americans getting time off at all are the lucky ones. Around 43% of workers in the bottom quarter of earners don't get any paid vacation time, while just 38% of part-time workers do.
“Every other comparable country in the world guarantees workers a decent minimum amount of paid vacation. In the United States, we don’t require employers to give any,” Schmitt said. “As a result, almost a quarter of our workforce has nothing at all, and the average for those workers who do have paid vacation is near the bottom of the minimum required by law in the rest of the world’s rich countries.”
Vacation days are just one of many areas where American workers are guaranteed less than their counterparts in other wealthy nations. The US is also the only OECD country with no national requirement for paid maternity leave or sick leave.
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have pushed for paid time off to be included in its "New Affordability Agenda," a package of bills focused on labor and the cost of living that they hope will pass if Democrats retake Congress this November.
They've included a bill introduced last year by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) which requires two weeks of paid vacation for full-time workers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Hasn’t Authorized Trump’s Iran War—or Ended It
The House voted to halt unauthorized hostilities; the Senate blocked a final vote, leaving troops and civilians inside a war lawmakers refuse to own.
Jul 29, 2026
On July 23, the House of Representatives voted 214-208 to direct President Donald Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them. Hours later, the Senate rejected a motion to bring a separate war powers resolution out of committee, 47-49.
The Senate did not authorize the war. It did not even vote on the resolution itself. It blocked the measure before senators had to answer the central question: Should the United States continue fighting a war Congress has never approved?
The war continued anyway.
That is the dangerous precedent now taking shape in Washington. The president can begin or expand military operations, and Congress is left trying to stop them after the bombs have fallen and retaliation has begun. If opponents cannot clear committees, procedural votes, narrow majorities, and a likely presidential veto, inertia does the work of authorization. No lawmaker has to cast a clear vote for the war, but troops and civilians must still live with the consequences.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Trump has since expanded direct US involvement without obtaining a congressional mandate. By July 22, the war had killed 18 US service members and injured hundreds more. The Pentagon put its cost at $37.5 billion, a figure that includes some anticipated expenses through September 30. A July Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 79% of Americans expected the conflict to drag on, while only 37% approved of the US strikes.
Iranian civilians have paid a far heavier price. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that by April 10, 1,701 civilians, including at least 254 children, had been killed since the war began. Iran’s Health Ministry said another 50 civilians were killed and 500 wounded during the renewed US strikes in July. An anti-war politics worthy of the name cannot ask Americans to care about their own soldiers while treating Iranian deaths as background noise.
For working-class families, the war is not an argument about executive theory. It arrives as an extended deployment, a flag-draped coffin, a long recovery from injury, higher fuel prices, and another demand that public money be redirected toward a conflict with no visible conclusion. The officials who refuse to define the mission do not bear those costs equally.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who introduced the House resolution, said the war has “no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal.” The administration has moved among overlapping justifications: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, retaliating for attacks, protecting US forces, and keeping commercial shipping open, as well as degrading Tehran’s regional military capabilities. Each objective can be used to justify another strike. None provides a measurable definition of victory or a credible route out.
Republican leaders argue that limiting Trump during active hostilities would weaken the United States and endanger deployed forces. The White House says the president needs flexibility to repel Iranian attacks and protect American personnel. It also argues that the House’s concurrent resolution lacks the force of law and warns that the measure could create “operational paralysis.”
A president must be able to protect troops from an immediate attack. That narrow defensive authority cannot become a blank check to define and prolong an entire war without Congress. Otherwise, each deployment creates the danger later invoked to expand it: US forces enter the conflict, Iran attacks them, and protecting them becomes the rationale for another round of strikes.
Sending troops into an open-ended conflict without a public mandate is not support. It is political abandonment.
Veterans have made that point more clearly than many lawmakers. After an earlier House war powers vote, Common Defense, a grassroots organization of veterans and military families, said that “veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans” and called congressional action essential to giving the public a voice. Supporting troops requires more than praising their sacrifice after they die. It requires telling them what the mission is, what limits govern it, what success looks like, and when it ends.
The House vote showed that opposition to unauthorized war is not entirely partisan. All 210 Democrats present joined Republicans Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Tom Barrett (Mich.). In the Senate, Republican Susan Collins (Maine) supported bringing the resolution forward, while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted with Republicans to block it.
But the larger story is institutional, not personal. Senators avoided a direct vote on whether to authorize or end the war. Procedural language cannot erase political responsibility. A senator who prevents Congress from considering restraint helps preserve the conditions under which the war continues.
The House resolution alone cannot stop the fighting. That makes Congress’ power over military funding the next real test. The White House has requested an $87.6 billion supplemental package, saying most of it would address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury. The request includes $67.1 billion for the Pentagon, with $21 billion of that amount designated for munitions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that about one-third of the entire package is driven by Iran war costs; the rest funds other administration priorities.
Lawmakers cannot credibly call a war unauthorized while financing its continuation without meaningful limits. Any new funding should prohibit offensive operations against Iran after a brief period for immediate force protection unless Congress passes a specific authorization. That authorization should define the enemy, mission, geographic scope, reporting requirements, and expiration date. Renewal should require another affirmative vote.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
Congressional authorization is not bureaucratic interference. It is the democratic process through which elected officials must tell the public why troops are being sent into danger. Trump owns the decision to wage and escalate this war. But lawmakers who block restraint, keep the money flowing, and refuse to demand a defined mission are not neutral observers. They are helping sustain a war they have never been willing to own.
Congress has not authorized Trump’s Iran war. Until lawmakers either define and limit the mission or stop paying for it, troops and civilians will remain trapped between a president claiming the power to continue and a legislature unwilling to take responsibility for ending it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Casar Demands Hearing After OpenAI Model Goes 'Full Cybercriminal' on Another Firm
"AI systems are creating real-world consequences," said one expert. "Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
Jul 29, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar on Wednesday called for a congressional hearing following reporting that the OpenAI artificial intelligence model that autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing also independently hacked another tech company.
Akshat Bubna, chief technology officer at New York-based Modal Labs, told Reuters that OpenAI's model exploited vulnerable code written by a customer that was hosted on the company's platform.
Last week, calls for stronger AI guardrails mounted after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted to a "significant security incident" during evaluation of one of the ChatGPT maker's models.
The target of that breach, the popular open-source platform Hugging Face, said Tuesday that the OpenAI model—widely described in the press as "rogue"—broke into a sandbox "hosted on a third-party provider's infrastructure" and used it to launch a broader attack.
Bubna stressed that Modal's platform was "not compromised in any way."
Experts underscored that OpenAI's purportedly "rogue" model was, in fact, performing a specific assigned task, which involved executing complex cyberattacks and exploiting vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
However, AI specialists said the incident illustrated the problem of misalignment. As artificial intelligence advances to the point where it will very likely outsmart humans, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous to the point where pioneers and preeminent experts in the field, including Altman, believe there is a growing chance that AI could one day cause human extinction.
Responding to Wednesday's reporting, Casar (D-Texas)—who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus—said on social media: "Today we learned more disturbing news about OpenAI's security breach. Sam Altman should answer questions under oath."
"Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies about the threat their technology poses to national security and American jobs," he argued.
Casar has been a leading voice in Congress for AI regulation. However, instead of advocating a pause or slowdown on AI development, he has focused on trying to ensure that the economic benefits of the rapidly developing technology are broadly shared and that companies cannot use AI to exploit workers or consumers.
Last year, Casar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act, a proposal to curb the growing trend of “surveillance-based price setting" in which companies utilize customer data to maximize profits.
In May, Casar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for a tax on artificial intelligence firms that would fund programs to help workers replaced by AI.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen also weighed in Wednesday on what it called the "growing national security and public safety implications of frontier AI systems."
“OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is in Washington this week, and he should not be allowed to leave DC without Congress seeking to understand, from him, publicly how one of the company’s most advanced AI systems escaped its intended testing environment and reportedly carried out offensive cyber operations affecting multiple companies,” JB Branch, the group's director of federal AI governance, said in a statement.
"The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened, why existing safeguards failed, and what concrete steps are being taken to prevent it from happening again," he continued. "Most importantly, Congress must act, not rely on voluntary action by Big Tech companies. AI systems are creating real-world consequences. Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
“The federal government must develop emergency authorities and response capabilities for advanced AI systems," Branch added.
"If a frontier model demonstrates dangerous autonomous behavior, the government cannot be left relying solely on private companies to decide when—or whether—to pause, contain, or disable it. A credible national emergency preparedness framework is now an essential component of AI governance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Election 'Reforms' Are a Blueprint for Constitutional Capture
Trump's project is less an effort to reform the electoral system than an attempt to hold it hostage from within its own legal machinery.
Jul 29, 2026
In the final days before Congress's summer recess, House Republicans advanced Donald Trump-backed voting restrictions by embedding them in legislation intended to prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. The legislative tactic reveals the nature of a broader project: using formal legal channels to alter the balance the Constitution establishes among voters, the states, Congress, and institutions of oversight.
American democracy is not a fixed ideal; it is a delicate mechanism sustained by election laws and institutional constraints. For that reason, what Trump and his allies are pursuing under the banner of "election integrity" is not merely a revision of a few administrative procedures. Their proposed legislation would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo identification at the ballot box and, alongside other proposals, would shift power away from voters and toward partisan institutions. That is the central contradiction: using the law as an instrument for hollowing out the spirit of the Constitution. From this perspective, Trump's project is less an effort to reform the electoral system than an attempt to hold it hostage from within its own legal machinery.
The first element of this project is an effort to revive the structural defect in the Electoral Count Act and the role of the vice president by reopening the very ambiguity that turned the transfer of power in 2021 into a national crisis. After January 6, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was unclear about the vice president's role and the process for objecting to state electoral votes. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 clarified that the vice president's role is purely ceremonial and that the office carries no authority to reject a state's electoral votes. It also raised the threshold for filing an objection from one member of the House and one senator to one-fifth of the members of each chamber.
Trump's political logic draws from the same interpretation that, in 2020, sought to grant the vice president or Congress a role extending beyond the counting of electoral votes. Weakening the 2022 reforms, or interpreting them expansively, would revive the notion that partisan officials may decide the validity of an election result after the votes have been cast—the same ambiguity that brought the peaceful transfer of power to the brink of collapse in 2021.
Allowing a candidate to rewrite the rules of the game in order to shield himself from defeat is not election reform.
The second element is the weaponization of the "independent state legislature theory," an interpretation under which state legislatures would be largely insulated from review by state courts and state constitutions when regulating federal elections. In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the maximalist version of this theory by a 6-3 vote, affirming that state legislatures do not operate outside the legal framework of their own states.
The theory nevertheless remains attractive to Trump's project because it could detach the making of election rules—and, under crisis conditions, the selection of electors—from state-level systems of checks and balances and place that authority in the hands of aligned legislatures. When some of those legislatures do not accurately reflect the popular vote because of gerrymandering, removing gubernatorial and judicial oversight does not strengthen federalism. It concentrates power in a partisan institution.
The third element is the weakening of the Voting Rights Act under the guise of "integrity" through restrictions on voting. Strict identification requirements, voter-roll purges, and limits on absentee voting are justified as safeguards against fraud, but their burden falls more heavily on people with less access to official documents and administrative resources. This raises concerns under the 15th Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting and the 24th Amendment's ban on imposing a financial cost on the right to vote.
A disparate impact, by itself, is not sufficient to establish a violation. Yet Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits practices that, under the totality of the circumstances, result in the denial or abridgment of voting rights on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority. Eliminating voting mechanisms on which low-income communities and minorities depend therefore cannot be justified simply by repeating allegations of fraud—particularly when Trump's sweeping claims of fraud in the 2020 election were not supported by credible evidence. The phrase "Jim Crow 2.0" refers precisely to this reproduction of voter disenfranchisement through modern administrative tools.
The fourth element is federalism in the abstract and the Republican contradiction over states' rights. For decades, the party has placed "states' rights" at the center of its political discourse and has denounced nationwide standards proposed by Democrats, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, as exercises in federal centralization. Yet Trump's project now calls on the federal government to impose stringent restrictions on voter registration and voting while simultaneously granting greater authority to aligned state legislatures.
The Constitution assigns shared roles to the states and Congress in the administration of federal elections. The Elections Clause in Article I gives the states primary authority, while also allowing Congress to alter election regulations. The problem lies in the selective use of this division of power: defending state autonomy when it obstructs the expansion of voting rights, and invoking federal authority when it entrenches restrictions favored by Republicans. This is no longer coherent federalism. It is an instrument for concentrating electoral power.
In the American legal system, elections are not merely political contests; they are legal processes that guarantee the legitimacy of government. The measures Trump presents as electoral cleanup or election integrity—from restricting access to the ballot to expanding the authority of state legislatures and weakening the safeguards adopted after January 6—all move in the same direction: transferring power away from voters and institutions of oversight and toward partisan actors who may determine both the rules and the validity of the result.
Opposition to this project should not be reduced to Democratic fears of losing elections. Defending the states' role in determining the method by which electors are chosen, judicial review, the lawful authority of Congress, and the equal voting rights of citizens means defending the balance that prevents the Constitution from becoming an administrative document placed at the service of one individual. Allowing a candidate to rewrite the rules of the game in order to shield himself from defeat is not election reform. It is the very danger the architects of the American republic sought to contain by dispersing power and constructing a system of mutual checks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SpaceX Stock Purchases by US Lawmakers Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns
"Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading."
Jul 28, 2026
Congressional lawmakers from both major parties who have purchased stock in Elon Musk's SpaceX—including some serving on committees whose work intersects with the company's business—are facing increasing scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, CNBC reported Tuesday.
According to CNBC's Luke Fountain and Justin Papp, six lawmakers—Reps. William Timmons (R-SC), John McGuire (R-Va.), Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), and John James (R-Mich.)—or members of their immediate families bought between roughly $83,000 and $245,000 in SpaceX shares combined. All of the purchases occurred within six days of SpaceX's June 12 initial public offering.
Although all of the purchases were legal and there is no evidence of insider trading, Fountain and Papp noted that "five of the lawmakers serve on committees whose work intersects with SpaceX’s defense, satellite, [artificial intelligence], federal contracting, or securities businesses."
Responding to the report, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) took to social media to call for a full ban on congressional stock trading.
Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street.They’re not doing it for the interest of their constituents — it’s in the interest of their pockets.We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) July 28, 2026 at 1:00 PM
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Stop Insider Trading Act in a bipartisan vote; however, the current legal framework is primarily based on preventing self-dealing and boosting disclosure, not a trading ban.
Last year, Jayapal introduced the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, and Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) revived the ETHICS Act, both of which would "prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures."
Monday's disclosure comes as SpaceX is already facing intense scrutiny over its growing influence in Washington, DC. In 2023, environmental groups sued the Federal Aviation Administration over approvals allowing expanded Starship launches in South Texas, arguing the agency violated federal environmental law by failing to adequately assess impacts on nearby wildlife refuges and endangered species amid a string of failed launches in which rockets exploded.
Earlier this year, tribal and conservation groups filed a lawsuit aiming to stop the US Fish and Wildlife Service from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
While conservationists contend that SpaceX launches and explosions threaten wildlife and sensitive habitats, astronomers have warned that the company's rapidly expanding Starlink satellite constellation is cluttering near-Earth orbit, degrading dark skies, and interfering with astronomical observations.
Critics have also raised concerns about Musk's relationship with federal regulators, with questions repeatedly raised surrounding the independence of agencies responsible for overseeing SpaceX as the company seeks further launch approvals.
While Musk's short-lived stint as the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency ended last year, a mix of former employees from Musk companies SpaceX, Tesla, and xAI were granted access or assigned to at least 15 executive branch agencies during 2025, according to reporting by The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, Wired, and other outlets.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
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