

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who may mount a leadership challenge against Sen. Chuck Schumer, called on Congress to “end this war now” by blocking the bill next month.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to say on Monday whether he'd support holding up a spending bill next month in an effort to force President Donald Trump to end his war in Iran before Democrats retake Congress in January.
"We're going to end the war in Iran one way or the other," Jeffries (D-NY) said during a news conference Monday, but added that the appropriations process was "in the hands of" Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrats on their chambers' respective appropriations committees.
Since Republicans’ resounding defeat in last Tuesday’s midterms, Trump has fluctuated wildly between declarations that the Iran War may soon end and bellicose threats to “destroy the rest” of the country. Some Democrats have taken this as a sign that urgent action is needed even before their new majorities take office in January.
Their most immediate point of leverage is the next government funding bill, which needs to be enacted by December 11 in order to avert a government shutdown.
With Trump ignoring the war powers resolution passed by Congress earlier this year, some Democrats have said they will withhold their votes unless the next bill contains clear language prohibiting federal funds from being used to continue waging the unauthorized war.
A Reuters/Ipsos post-election survey published Monday showed that 71% of all adults supported legislation to end the war, including 51% of Republicans.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has suggested launching a leadership challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Tuesday morning that Democrats must use their leverage to end the war as soon as possible.
"The American people have spoken loudly and clearly: We need to end the war in Iran now," Van Hollen said in a video posted to social media. "We're now 255 days into that war, a war that Donald Trump said would be over in a matter of weeks."
"What's the fastest way to end this war? Well, to stop funding it, to stop giving it the fuel it needs to keep going," he continued, pointing to the December 11 deadline for a new spending bill.
"If President Trump wants to tell the country that he'll shut down the entire government, all federal agencies, in order to keep his illegal war going, that's his decision," Van Hollen said. "But the American people have rendered their decision. Let's end this war and end it now: not a penny more."
Schumer, whom several incoming members of the Senate Democratic caucus have pledged to vote against as majority leader, has not publicly stated a position on whether he'd support using the December 11 deadline to force concessions from Trump. Last week, he told Politico he was working with Murray to “get something done” on government funding before December 11, but did not say whether he would demand a cutoff of war funding.
In a joint statement Monday, following a Democratic leadership meeting, Schumer and Jeffries pledged to “stop the reckless war of choice in Iran," but did not indicate what action they planned to take. They added that "a new day is coming on January 3."
Jeffries said last week that his goal was “to reach a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people and prioritizes their economic well-being, health, and safety.”
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim suggested that Van Hollen’s demand for Democrats to hold up the December spending bill may put more pressure on Schumer to endorse a similar strategy. Jeffries, on the other hand, has not had his leadership role challenged, and several progressive members of Congress have said they’ll back him as speaker despite their policy disagreements.
Grim said Jeffries’ response showed he was “feeling absolutely no pressure to end this war, clearly very confident he’ll become speaker regardless.”
Since Trump launched the war in February, critics have argued that Jeffries' response was lackluster. As independent journalist Adam Johnson recounted, Jeffries focused largely on procedural objections to the war while reinforcing many of the Trump administration's justifications for it, including saying that Iran needed to be "aggressively confronted."
While Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were pushing for a war powers resolution as Trump built an “armada” in the Middle East weeks before the start of “Operation Epic Fury,” Jeffries did not force a vote on it to occur until several days after the bombing began.
Johnson argued that Jeffries has been "at best sleepy, useless, and indifferent" in response to the war.
The anti-war group Just Foreign Policy, one of the groups that pressured Democrats to ultimately invoke the War Powers Resolution against Trump, said that cutting off funding was one of the only guaranteed ways to bring the war to an end.
The group noted that Congress' July 1973 decision to cut off funding played a decisive role in forcing President Richard Nixon to end direct combat operations elsewhere in Southeast Asia amid the US withdrawal from Vietnam.
It noted that the US bombing of Cambodia ceased the day that the funding prohibition took effect. After the House voted to restrict funding, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared, "That finishes us."
"The ONLY way to truly rein in war criminals like [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] and Kissinger is for Congress to be willing to force the White House to risk a government shutdown if it wants to continue the war," Just Foreign Policy said. "Time to shut the funding down like Congress did for Vietnam. Force Republicans to fund it themselves if they refuse."
"Trump can’t admit his policies fucked the midterms," said one critic. "Nothing is ever his fault. So now the accusation is that red states cheated against themselves."
As Republicans reel from last week's "blue tsunami" midterm wipeout, President Donald Trump—who previously congratulated Democrats on their historic takeback of both houses of Congress—on Monday reverted to the kind of election denial that sparked the 2021 Capitol insurrection, making a baseless claim of voting machine fraud.
“Does anybody really believe that this ‘Election’ was honest,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “How could the Polls be so wrong??? Some early voting ‘dumps’ were so large that it was impossible to win, no matter how many people went to vote. It’s all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter!”
The polls, which widely forecast Democrats reclaiming one or both chambers of Congress, were largely accurate. And despite a handful of localized issues with voting machines, there is no evidence of any widespread problems.
I was just thinking how weird it was that Trump didn’t call the midterms rigged.Well…
[image or embed]
— Matt Novak (@paleofuture.bsky.social) November 9, 2026 at 7:16 AM
On Election Night, Trump said during a phone call to Fox News: "Congratulations to the Democrats. I think the Democrats did a good job. I really do. I think they did a good job. They fought hard. They were, you know, they've been fighting for a long time. They've been fighting me for a long time. This fight's been going on for ages."
However, as unfounded claims of fraud proliferated on social media—and amid posts promoting a January 3 "Million Crusader Cross March" on the Capitol headlined by racist provocateur Jake Lang—the president changed his tune.
"Trump now claims the midterms were rigged," noted the political action group Blue Georgia. "It was just a matter of time."
Conspiracy theory journalist Mike Rothschild said on Bluesky: "After a week of meekly accepting the midterm results, Trump has veered into 'the machines are rigged' denial." But this is a pale shadow of 2020 denialism. He sounds beaten and disinterested."
Former Chicago Tribune metro editor Mark Jacobs also took to Bluesky, touting his prediction that the president would cry fraud and writing, "I knew Trump could never resist the impulse to declare that the election was rigged if he lost."
"The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said on X, "Lather, rinse, repeat."
Former Obama and Biden administration appointee Andrew Weinstein said: "Losing isn't proof of fraud. It's proof you lost."
Tangle News founder Isaac Saul also took to X, opining that Trump's denial "feels pretty flaccid."
"Nobody *actually* thinks these results are nefarious, and it seems like there's a lot of impatience on the right with anyone suggesting these losses were due to fraud and not policy," he added. "Even Trump seems to be offering this as an afterthought."
That right-wing impatience was evident in just two words from commentator Megyn Kelly, who posted, "Just stop."
Progressive advocacy group Our Revolution is calling on leadership candidates to "publicly explain how they would use the new majority to challenge corporate influence, lower costs, and deliver for working people."
With Democrats poised to take over both chambers of the US Congress next year, a majority of progressive organizers are calling for the party to seek new leadership.
A survey of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday shows that there is strong demand among organizers for replacing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who are seeking the majority leader and speaker roles.
In total, the survey finds that 72% of activists want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him and 22% who say they're willing to see what he delivers.
Support for Jeffries was stronger than for Schumer, although 52% of respondents said they wanted a different leader, with 18% offering full support and 29% taking a wait-and-see approach.
Our Revolution has been calling for "open, competitive leadership elections" for the new Democratic Congress, and is urging prospective candidates to "publicly explain how they would use the new majority to challenge corporate influence, lower costs, and deliver for working people."
Schumer and Jeffries have given no indication that they plan to step back from their ambitions to lead Democrats in Congress, and the two put out a joint statement on Monday outlining their priorities.
"The American people have forcefully rejected MAGA extremism and are demanding dramatic change in their lives," Schumer and Jeffries said. "House and Senate Democrats have been given a clear mandate to aggressively address the affordability crisis, stop the reckless war of choice in Iran, meaningfully expand access to affordable healthcare, and hold the crooks accountable who have unleashed unprecedented corruption on the country."
“A new day is coming on January 3rd," they added. "Democrats are united and ready to lead."
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is opening to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after receiving "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
"This is an organization that believes in privacy," Tester said of Palantir, whose software ICE has used to identify targets for deportation and compile dossiers on activists.
Expecting to face a slew of investigations by a Democratic-controlled Congress, the infamous Trump administration-aligned tech firm Palantir is apparently trying to soften its image by bringing in a trusted name: former Democratic US Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.
NPR reported Monday that the three-term senator—who lost his reelection bid in 2024—was joining the surveillance company in an “advisory” role on the government side of the company's work.
Palantir, co-founded by the billionaire right-wing megadonor Peter Thiel, has received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts supporting President Donald Trump's “mass deportation” campaign during his second term. The company has developed technology that has been used to identify and track immigrants targeted for removal and has reportedly helped federal agencies integrate vast troves of Americans’ personal data—raising concerns among civil rights groups about violations of privacy.
After Trump returned to office in January 2025, Palantir's leadership aggressively courted his administration. The company's CEO, Alex Karp, who had supported Kamala Harris over Trump in the presidential election, gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund before pivoting to praise the president's immigration policies and declare his company “completely anti-woke.” Palantir donated an additional $10 million to Trump's White House ballroom project. Meanwhile, company co-founder Joe Lonsdale has been one of the leading backers of the administration's second-term efforts to criminalize homelessness.
This has drawn the ire of Democrats in Congress, who have vowed to put Palantir's practices under the microscope when they take control of investigative committees beginning in January.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who will chair the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has threatened to use compulsory investigative powers if Palantir refuses to answer questions about its role in Trump's immigration enforcement and handling of Americans' personal information. Other Democrats have suggested looking into conflicts of interest between the company and the administration.
Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s mass deportation policy, who was appointed White House chief of staff last week, for instance, has disclosed that he sold up to $250,000 worth of Palantir stock last summer. Several former Palantir employees have been appointed to powerful government positions. Thiel helped to finance the political rise of Vice President JD Vance.

Tester, a vocal critic of the PATRIOT Act and the resulting expansion of government surveillance, told NPR that Palantir's problem was, more than anything, one of "perception."
"Perception is reality in Washington, DC, and in politics in general," said Tester. "But the fact is, I think Palantir has got a good story to tell, and they need to tell it. And hopefully folks will be receptive to it."
Tester said he does not share the fears that many others hold about his new employer: "I've talked to many people within Palantir. They believe the same way I do," he said. "This is an organization that believes in privacy."
He said Palantir was different from other companies because it does not build “big databases.” Though the company maintains that it does not itself collect or own the personal data processed by its software, it specializes in building systems that consolidate, store, cross-reference, and analyze vast amounts of data from different sources.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for instance, has used a Palantir-developed application called ELITE that combines address data from federal health records, immigration records, commercial databases, and criminal records to map potential targets for immigration raids. Shortly before the midterms, Democracy Docket revealed that ICE had tried to add voter information from at least six states to the platform.
Last month, a WIRED investigation revealed how federal agents assembled dossiers on activists observing immigration enforcement operations in Maine using Palantir's Investigative Case Management system to store information about them—including license plate data and facial recognition information.
During his time in Congress, Tester also criticized lobbyists’ influence over Congress, even while receiving more donations from lobbyists than any other lawmaker in the 2012 and 2018 election cycles.
David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, said that for the former senator, the transition from surveillance critic to Palantir adviser was quite “on-brand.”
Pollster Adam Carlson described it as "just about the grossest way he could end his career."
"I can count on one hand companies that are more evil and have caused more direct human suffering than Palantir," Carlson said. "And these kinds of revolving door antics make the public even more jaded and distrustful of their elected officials."
Tester has said he would not be acting as a “lobbyist” for Palantir but would instead merely be helping it to navigate its relations with the incoming Congress, using his nearly two decades of insider experience.
Tester is not the first former Democratic lawmaker to take a role advising an industry that has drawn criticism from within the party.
Recent examples include former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), a one-time Democrat who joined Coinbase's advisory council and helped launch an artificial intelligence industry advocacy group, and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), who joined a fossil fuel industry-funded influence campaign to promote natural gas as part of a clean energy transition.
Melanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of the New York Health Campaign, said Tester's journey to the private sector was an example of this “politician to lobbyist pipeline.”
The American People registered their disapproval of Trumpism at the ballot box. Will they now go further and demand that the powers that made him so dangerous be stripped from the presidency, or will they just hand them to someone else?
Last Tuesday's election was a stunning defeat for President Donald Trump. Democrats won both houses of Congress, including Senate races in states they haven't won in generations. Americans went to the polls angry about rising prices, government corruption, rising authoritarianism, and a war with Iran they never wanted. Those frustrations are deeply connected. But this moment can, and should, be an opportunity to do more than move beyond President Trump and his movement. It's an opportunity for people across the country to question how we got here, and what needs to change about American power.
Already, the administration responsible for the war are trying to distance themselves from it. Vice President JD Vance is blaming the Iran war for the Republican defeat. On Election Day President Trump himself went on Fox News to declare he's planning to end military aid to Israel, though he openly admitted that his motivation for making the announcement was to deny his opponents a "bad talking point." Republicans seem to be coalescing around a scapegoat in Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, in a move reminiscent to George W. Bush's firing of Donald Rumsfeld after the midterm disaster of 2006. A vote for Hegseth's impeachment may come as early as next week, if he isn't forced out sooner.
This kind of double-talk is nothing new from this administration. Trump ran against disastrous wars of choice. Then he started a new one. It's no surprise that now he's talking about peace again. But this is about much more than Donald Trump's hypocrisy.
War makes the government more powerful while it makes ordinary people less secure. The question is whether the disease of American militarism is terminal, or whether we're finally ready to do something about it.
If Trump disappeared tomorrow, the Office of the Presidency would still have the dangerous power to start wars without any legal authority to do so. American military power would still be deployed around the world, threatening other nations. Paramilitary forces like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol would still be terrorizing American cities in violation of US law. The American People registered their disapproval of Trumpism at the ballot box. Will they now go further and demand that the powers be stripped from the presidency, or will they just hand them to someone else?
Nearly 60 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. asked Americans a similar question in his speech at Riverside Church in New York City, "Beyond Vietnam." King didn't just want to end that war. He wanted the American People to confront the racism, extreme materialism, and militarism that made it possible.
King had seen hope in President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. As Vietnam escalated, he watched the effort to help poor Americans get pushed aside. The war consumed the money, attention, and political will that those programs needed to succeed. King came to see Vietnam as an enemy of poor people here at home, not only of the people being killed overseas.
President Trump returned to the White House promising to bring prices down. Instead, his war with Iran has made everything more expensive. The price of gasoline, diesel fuel, groceries, everything from fertilizer to electronics, has skyrocketed. Mortgage rates and other borrowing costs are higher than they were before the war. Businesses struggling to predict energy prices and interest rates have a harder time deciding whether to expand or hire. They put off opening a new location, buying equipment, or taking a chance on another employee. Those decisions affect real jobs and make planning a future harder for families, too.
And Americans know it. They were promised economic relief. Now they're paying for a war they did not ask for.
Now the same administration that brought us the war in Iran is asking to spend even more tax dollars on the military. The United States spent about $954 billion on its military in 2025. Now Trump is proposing $1.5 trillion in defense funding for 2027, while seeking cuts to domestic programs. After seeing what this administration has done with a near trillion dollar war budget, why would anyone believe that giving it $500 billion more will make life better for Americans?
This isn't a problem Trump invented. The United States helped overthrow Iran's prime minister in 1953. It fought in Vietnam, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and supplied the weapons Israel used to destroy of Gaza. It's undermined democracy in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, repeatedly backing dictatorships and interfering with other countries' governments. Republicans and Democrats have both taken part.
For generations America has operated as if it has a special right to decide the future of other countries. US leaders condemn invasions and violations of sovereignty when someone else commits them, and make exceptions when the United States does the same. It's not imperialism, it's spreading democracy, even when the people on the receiving end haven't asked for our help.
Racism has always helped make this possible, and it's more apparent than ever. Trump's talk about "shithole countries" and his bans on immigration from Muslim countries are blatant and vulgar, but they're not entirely new. For US policy, some people's lives and rights have always counted for less than the lives and rights of "others." That attitude doesn't stay overseas. We see it when ICE and Border Patrol agents terrorize immigrant neighborhoods, when police treat protesters as enemies, and when troops are sent into American cities. The government decides certain communities, ethnicities, or ideologies are dangerous, then it uses that fear to justify using extraordinary violence against them. This has been the case for a long time. The Trump administration just glorifies the cruelty instead of hiding it.
All of this becomes more frightening when we consider how much power is concentrated in the presidency. People worry about Trump having his finger on the nuclear button, and should. But why should anyone have that power? A president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons without asking anyone's permission. Author Elaine Scarry calls this a "Thermonuclear Monarchy." Changing the president doesn't change that fact.
Nuclear weapons are just the clearest example. The federal government funds research at universities, healthcare for millions, and humanitarian work around the world. Those programs can do real good. But we've seen the Trump administration use those funds to threaten universities' research funding unless they capitulate to political demands. It threatens nonprofits for exercising protected speech. If one administration can threaten the survival of institutions by withholding money, people naturally start worrying about whether they can afford to speak up.
The damage spreads. University leaders watch what they say. Businesses look for favors and lavish praise on the leader. Members of Congress avoid challenging their own president. Organizations that need federal money learn to keep quiet. Power can corrupt the people who hold it, but it can also corrupt everyone who needs something from them.
James Madison warned that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. He knew war increases executive power and creates opportunities for corruption. If, to borrow a phrase from anti-war writer Randolph Bourne, "War is the health of the State," then America is a sick nation.
Dr. King warned in "Beyond Vietnam" that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Nearly 60 years later, we're still making those choices. War makes the government more powerful while it makes ordinary people less secure. The question is whether the disease of American militarism is terminal, or whether we're finally ready to do something about it.
Tuesday's election gives the next Congress a chance to act. It can challenge the Iran war, take back its constitutional authority over war and spending, put limits on presidential nuclear power, and protect public institutions from political punishment. It can ask why so much public money keeps going toward weapons while Americans struggle with everyday expenses.
But the election also gives us a chance to change the argument itself. If people concerned about war, corruption, freedom, and affordability don't recognize how those issues fit together, politicians who started or supported this war will keep claiming to be the ones who can deliver peace. We need more than a different set of promises from the people in charge.
King understood that ending Vietnam wouldn't be enough if America just went back to doing the same thing somewhere else. Defeating Trump won't be enough either. We've spent generations expanding our military reach and handing presidents powers that no one person should have, all while convincing ourselves that America can be trusted to use them responsibly.
We shouldn't have to wait for the next Donald Trump to recognize how dangerous that is.
The historic repudiation of Trump and his anti-environmental policies gives incoming lawmakers a chance to protect our oceans and waterways as the climate warms.
The historic impact of the November 3 "Blue Wave" election that swept Democrats into power in both chambers of Congress, statehouses, and elsewhere is widely understood to be a vast rejection of the Trump regime and will be felt across the land and also on our public seas.
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that oversees the Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), weather, and climate will, come January, likely be chaired by Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) who’s chaired it in the past, after Ted Cruz (R-Texas) hands over the gavel. Cantwell has been a strong opponent of offshore drilling along the West Coast proposed by President Donald Trump and played a major role in blocking the administration’s attempt to shut down a $386 million Ocean Observation System and other federal science projects. She is likely to also work to restore full—pre-Trump—funding for NOAA (the Coast Guard has already gotten a major boost in funding under Trump).
On the House side the change will be even more dramatic with Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) expected to take the gavel of the House Committee on Natural Resources for the first time. A longtime climate advocate within Congress and one-time environmental attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, he’s seen some of the worst marine impacts of climate change including the collapse of some 300 miles of kelp forest habitat in his large district that includes all of coastal California north of the Golden Gate. He’s introduced marine protection legislation in the past, including a Help Our Kelp act in 2025, and is likely to highlight the ocean-climate connection from his position as Chair.
For marine conservation groups there will be new opportunities starting now to work with both Congress and with newly elected state officials.
The challenge for the new Congress will be to reverse some of the impacts already felt during the first two years of Trump’s second non-consecutive term. At NOAA they’ll not be able to reverse the loss of both senior managers and new employees who were fired under Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency if they’d worked for the agency less than two years.
Nonetheless the new Congress will likely seek ways to restore autonomy and scientific integrity to NOAA, the National Science Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies that were set up to be non-political, but have become corporate and military tools under Trump’s appointees, promoting—along with the elimination of polluter penalties onshore—offshore oil drilling, deep-sea mining, commercial fishing in protected marine monuments, and extrajudicial killings of small boat operators (suspected drug runners), while also attacking and undermining the offshore wind industry to the tune of $4 billion in taxpayer money to date.
Despite efforts by Democratic leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to downplay climate change during the hot smokey summer campaign (and stay focused on "affordability") elected activists working within the new congressional majorities such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D RI) and Huffman will likely start connecting extreme weather events costing citizens their lives and livelihoods to fossil fuel-fired climate change. They will certainly focus on (and maybe investigate) the oil companies making obscene profits off of the extreme weather events they contribute to as well as from the war in Iran.
At the same time Whitehouse and Huffman differ on a lame duck congressional bill that would allow fast-track permitting for infrastructure plans including offshore wind farms but also onshore gas lines, mines, and data centers.
Ongoing climate disasters have been “non-issues" under Trump’s compliant Congress, including global marine heatwaves that have devastated commercial fisheries, marine mammals, and key habitats such as coral and kelp while spreading diseases linked to harmful algal blooms. Those impacts will be magnified by this year’s historic El Niño.
For marine conservation groups there will be new opportunities starting now to work with both Congress and with newly elected state officials in places such as Kansas and Iowa to address issues including polluted runoff from agriculture that impacts both local drinking water quality and—following gravity down rivers—generates coastal dead zones along with harmful algal blooms.
There will also be opportunities to develop effective coalitions and legislation around plastic marine pollution (holding the manufacturers responsible), illegal fishing operations and seafood traceability, establishing sustainability standards for seafood aquaculture and for coastal development, along with many other creative approaches to living well with our coasts and ocean.
And while much of this legislation may be vetoed by a lame-duck president, it, along with model legislation for more popular ideas such as increasing the minimum wage and universal healthcare, will at the least set the stage and create the platform for the next elections in 2028.
The job of marine conservation groups will be to highlight the opportunities, educate the public around less familiar issues such as kelp and climate or coastal adaptation, engage with policymakers, and hold them accountable while training and collaborating with the next generation of youth activists. As Sen. Jeff Merkeley (D-Ore.) told a group promoting an Ocean Climate Action Plan: “Let’s bring all the best ideas forward and craft legislation. We need an outside force and an inside force to make anything happen in Congress, so let’s forge that together and help save our ocean and our world.”
Progressive and anti-war groups say Democrats don't even need to wait until January—they can hold up money for the war when government funding runs out next month.
After voters delivered a clear rebuke of President Donald Trump’s Iran War on Election Day, a senior US House Democrat said ending the conflict will be a top priority when his party assumes control of Congress—one made even more urgent after the president's renewed threats to "destroy" Iran on Thursday.
"I think it’ll be one of the first things we do, and strongest things that we should do," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who is slated to chair the House Armed Services Committee, when asked by The New Republic's Greg Sargent whether Democrats will use their newfound majorities in both chambers to cut off funding for the war, which just entered its ninth month.
Smith said he expects Democrats will pursue a bill that forbids any further funding for the conflict, which the Pentagon says has cost over $47 billion, though independent estimates put the cost much higher.
A bill of this sort, Smith said, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump, meaning Republicans in both chambers would need to provide enough votes to override his veto.
Overwhelming opposition to the Iran War, which has dragged on without an end in sight and caused inflation to surge, played a central role in the electoral beatdown Republicans suffered on Tuesday. Nationwide, 63% of voters said launching the war was the "wrong decision," according to an NBC News exit poll. Among those voters, 82% favored Democrats.
Nearly three-quarters of voters (74%) said that the war was a "crucial or major" factor in their vote, and 63% of them said they chose Democrats.
But even as members of his party, including Vice President JD Vance, state plainly that "the reason we lost is the war," Trump has continued to defend it and suggested he may pursue deeper intervention.
"I would rather not destroy the rest of the country if possible, but maybe I'll have to," he told reporters in the Oval Office. "You'll know soon enough."
Trump has made similar threats to "annihilate" Iran, "blow up" the country, and eradicate the "whole civilization" for months. But now that the midterms are over, there are fewer political pressures holding him back from following through on these threats.
The administration reportedly has plans drawn up for a renewed, large-scale bombing campaign that could target the country's energy infrastructure, military installations, and nuclear facilities, possibly with Israeli participation. Last month, it was reported that Trump was mulling dropping "the mother of all bombs," the largest nonnuclear bomb in the American arsenal, on Iran, which poses the risk of massive civilian casualties.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who received a classified briefing about the plans days before the midterms, called them "insane" and said they involved deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in violation of international law.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the only Iranian American Democrat in the US Congress, said that Trump's renewed threats on Thursday only increase the urgency of ending the war.
"He’s once again threatening the annihilation of a country of 90 million people," Ansari wrote on social media. "A crime against humanity. Democrats must work urgently to end Trump’s reckless war of choice when we take back the House and the Senate. Enough is enough."
A "flurry of diplomatic activity" has followed the midterms, according to reporting by Axios' Barak Ravid. Iranian negotiators have spoken with regional mediators about a possible deal for the US to lift its naval blockade and release some of Iran’s frozen funds in exchange for nuclear talks and an end to Iran's travel restrictions through the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the same report, US Central Command was "finalizing preparations" to restart major combat operations in Iran, though there has not been an official directive from Washington.
"The American people delivered a clear mandate to end the illegal war on Iran," said the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) on Thursday. "Trump instead suggests he may escalate the war and commit war crimes to 'destroy the rest of' Iran. This is outrageous and unacceptable."
"Congress," it said, "must cut off funding for this war NOW."

Democrats may have opportunities to push for the end of the war before January.
Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the leading Republican critic of the war, whom Trump helped to defeat in his primary earlier this year, has said he plans to force a vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth next week for violating the war powers resolution passed by Congress.
"By every estimation, it will pass and he will be impeached," Smith said. "And off that goes to the Senate. Then the Senate is legally required to spend all of their time dealing with that until it’s done with."
Still, it remains an open question whether the necessary two-thirds of senators would vote to remove Hegseth and whether the pressure could meaningfully affect the war.
Another chance to stop the war will come on December 11, when Congress will need to approve another spending measure to prevent a government shutdown.
According to Roll Call, the progressive advocacy group Indivisible sent a memo on Thursday pushing Democrats to block a National Defense Authorization Act and refuse to fund the Pentagon if “it doesn’t cut off money for the war.”
“Voters have granted Democrats majorities in the House and Senate with a clear mandate: End this war," said Jamal Abdi, the president of NIAC. "The first test of the Democrats’ commitment to that mandate will be when Congress takes up legislation to fund the government before funding runs out on December 11."
"After having won Congress thanks to a massively unpopular war," he said, "the best way to squander this momentum would be for Democrats to turn around and provide funding for the president to continue the conflict."
"The new Democratic majority in Congress should pass bills to make life more affordable and our government less corrupt."
One of the easiest ways to spot a supporter of US President Donald Trump is a red hat declaring "Make America Great Again," but after a Democratic "tsunami" in the midterms earlier this week, the Republican leader unveiled a new cap that says "VETO."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an incoming committee chair who's long sparred with Trump, responded Thursday by making clear that Democrats are determined to pass far-reaching legislation after securing significant—but not veto-proof—majorities in both chambers of Congress.
"If Donald Trump wants to be Mr. Veto, let's test that out," she wrote on social media, replying to a White House photo of the hat placed next to the president as he signed an executive order declaring the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room national monuments. "The new Democratic majority in Congress should pass bills to make life more affordable and our government less corrupt."
Warren's X post echoed her Thursday op-ed about "why Democrats won the midterms"—as of Friday, they have at least 54 senators and 253 seats in the House of Representatives—and how they now "must deliver... even with Donald Trump in the White House."
"Trump says he welcomes the nickname 'Mr. Veto.' Well, let's test that out by passing legislation the American people support," she wrote for Time, urging Democrats to stop the Iran War, reverse GOP healthcare cuts while expanding coverage, fund universal childcare, and cancel "the tax breaks Trump and the Republicans handed out to corporations, ultramillionaires, and billionaires."
Other priorities for the progressive—who is set to lead the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs—include "bills to ban stock trading by federal officials or crack down on Trump's corruption in plain sight," as well as efforts to make "Big Tech CEOs, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations... answer tough questions" about "ripping off the American people."
Warren isn't alone in urging the party to call Trump's bluff once Democrats have enough votes to pass bills without GOP support in January. Also responding to the White House's hat post, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) declared Friday, "Let's do it."
"Let's dare him to veto" legislation on the following, Duckworth said:
Democratic victories on Tuesday also generated fresh hope about eventually replacing the US for-profit healthcare system with Medicare for All—a hallmark issue for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is expected to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and has been credited with making the party's policies more progressive via his presidential runs and engagement with voters across the country on his Fighting Oligarchy Tour..
As political observers asserted that "Bernie made the path" for progressive candidates who campaigned on economic populism to win key elections this week, Sanders has said in multiple interviews that the incoming Democrat-controlled Congress should pass Medicare for All—which would save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion annually—and see if Trump vetoes it.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible 2028 presidential contender who previously led Senate Democrats' campaign arm, similarly argued that despite Trump's threats this week, the new majorities should fight to improve affordability and tax the rich.
"It is essential that we show the American people where we stand," Van Hollen told Politico. "If Trump vetoes it, it will just show people that he's on the side of billionaires."
While he is reportedly not going to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to be Senate majority leader post, Van Hollen has also suggested that Democrats should not back the current minority leader without securing his support for a "bold agenda."
“Haul in corporate CEOs. Put them under oath. Make them answer for the rip-offs,” said Groundwork Collaborative president Lindsay Owens after the midterm elections.
After receiving a resounding mandate to act on America’s cost-of-living crisis, Democrats are considering bringing corporate executives before Congress in January.
The Washington Sun reported Thursday that House Democrats on the Judiciary and Oversight committees are examining a 181-page dossier created by Groundwork Collaborative, a consumer advocacy group that has chronicled “price gouging” by grocery chains and retailers like Walmart.
According to the Sun, the document singles out some of "the biggest tech giants, artificial intelligence labs, natural gas firms, private prisons and nursing home operators, among dozens of others," including for their alleged roles in driving up prices for cash-strapped Americans in recent years.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is expected to take over as chair of the House Judiciary Committee in January, told the Sun that his staff had been examining potential investigations, but he remained vague about his plans.
“We’re not targeting particular corporations,” Raskin said. “We’re targeting systems and networks of corruption, and to the extent corporations are involved, they are subject to the oversight project of Congress and our subpoena authority like everyone else.”
Democrats steamrolled across the map in Tuesday's midterms, with 48% of voters saying that the cost of living was the single most important issue motivating them, according to a pre-election survey by Reuters/Ipsos.
Lindsay Owens, Groundwork’s president and CEO, said that, to fulfill their campaign-trail promises to fight for “affordability,” Democratic lawmakers must relentlessly pursue accountability for corporate greed.
“Last night made it pretty clear: People are sick and tired of corporate America scheming its way to record profits while the rest of us get stuck with the bill,” she wrote on social media Wednesday. “Haul in corporate CEOs. Put them under oath. Make them answer for the rip-offs. Time for some accountability.”
In a Tuesday podcast appearance with Theo Von before the election, Owens said Democrats must zero in on what she has called corporate America’s “reinvention of the rip-off” over the past five years, which has involved increasingly targeted and sophisticated methods—including algorithmic price-fixing, junk fees, and subscription traps—to squeeze every possible cent out of consumers.
Rather than focusing solely on investigating President Donald Trump and his administration, Owens said Democrats also need to bring in "everyone from corporate America" and take them to task for their pricing tactics.
“Put the CEO of Walmart in the hot seat and [say], ‘Tell me what’s going on with Sparky,’” she said, referencing an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot the company launched last year. Executives have boasted during an earnings call that consumers who use the shopping assistant spend an average of 40% more per order than those who do not.
She said the CEO of DoorDash should also be called to testify over its planned "agitation index," which would have monitored users' scrolling speed, jerky movements, battery level, and other variables to adjust what they see on the app. The company withdrew its patent application for the technology two days after Owens testified before the US Senate, warning it could be used to hike prices on hungry customers.
The CEO of Uber, she said, should also be brought in to explain why customers have been charged dramatically different fares for the same route using algorithms that the company has said are based on what a consumer is willing to pay.
Much of what has already been documented about these practices comes from publicly available sources, such as patent filings and “the stuff they’re stupid enough to say to their investors” on earnings calls, Owens said.
But with control of House and Senate committees, she said, Democrats will have the power to force companies to "turn over their books, their algorithm... all of the stuff that they don't want us to see."
She said, "That will require ticking off some companies and ticking off some lobbyists and doing business a little differently than Washington has done business in the past."
"Affordability was top of mind for voters last night, and within that, healthcare is an enormous driver."
"WHO WANTS MEDICARE FOR ALL?"
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked that question, in all caps, on social media late Tuesday as he won reelection and joined others from his party in trouncing President Donald Trump's Republicans across the country, securing majorities in both chambers of Congress thanks to voters frustrated by an affordability crisis under a GOP trifecta.
Although some races haven't yet been called, and key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New Yorker likely to become the next speaker, don't support shifting the United States to a universal public healthcare system, the Democratic "tsunami" on Tuesday still revived hope that the results could help the fight for Medicare for All.
Democrats reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives after Trump and congressional Republicans last year used their budget package, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to slash Medicaid spending and allow Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire—which has already led to millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage.
The wave of Democratic wins also came nearly five months after a coalition of over 325 organizations argued that "now is the time to organize" for Medicare for All, given that "we may face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate on healthcare in 2029."
While—as the coalition suggested—passing federal Medicare for All legislation would likely require not only a Democrat-controlled Congress but also replacing Trump with a progressive president in 2028, the midterm results are still being seen by voters and elected officials alike as "a mandate to deliver big change" over the next two years.
"Wins by progressive candidates will jumpstart a national discussion of Medicare for All," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "Medicare for All isn't going to pass in the next two years. But, newly prominent advocates will have a platform to make sure it's part [of] the discussion, carrying through to the 2028 primaries."
Even without support from party leaders and the White House, Democrats may still push for congressional hearings or even votes on single-payer policies before the 2028 elections.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, told Punchbowl News this week that she wants to mark up the bill next year and fight for a vote on the floor: "I want to make sure we have the requisite number of co-sponsors, and I’m hoping that our leadership is part of helping to make that happen."
As Forbes reported:
Several Democrats who won seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives made Medicare for All or a public option key parts of their winning campaigns. Such ideas will likely get more airtime now that Democrats control both houses of Congress in a rebuke of Trump administration policies that have slashed healthcare spending.
Exactly what form a "public option" would take [is] unclear, but such a choice being offered to Americans alongside private and existing health insurance coverage would seem more achievable than replacing the existing health insurance system with Medicare for All.
The American Prospect pointed out that Medicare for All supporters who emerged victorious on Tuesday include Rep.-elects Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 7th, 10th, and 13th districts, along with "Democratic Georgia state Rep. Dr. Jasmine Clark, who won more than 81% of the vote to represent Georgia's 13th District; Democrat Melat Kiros, who beat nearly 30-year incumbent Republican US Rep. Diana DeGette to represent Colorado's 1st District; and Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George, who will be Washington, DC’s first new mayor in more than a decade."
Among the victors in the US Senate were Democrats Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Troy Jackson of Maine, also both vocal backers of Medicare for All. Jayapal highlighted that "Abdul was up against millions of dollars in dark money from Republican donors—and today Michigan voters sent a clear message that their state and their votes are not for sale."
"Abdul ran a strong campaign on Medicare for All, refused corporate [political action committee] money, and stayed focused on working families from day one to Election Day," she added. "I am so proud to have stood with him throughout his campaign and I cannot wait to work with him in Washington to deliver for you."
From leading a border blockade to protect loggers' wages, to the state legislature and President of the Maine Senate, Troy has spent his life fighting for working Mainers. We look forward to organizing with Sen.-elect Jackson to pass Medicare For All and secure a federal right to abortion.
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 4, 2026 at 1:01 AM
The leading voice for Medicare for All in the upper chamber, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), worked to elect both El-Sayed and Jackson, as well as several leftist House candidates who won. He wrote on social media Wednesday that "last night saw some of the greatest progressive victories in modern American history. All across the country, in rural and urban areas, Americans said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class."
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is expected to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when the party takes over in January, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another Medicare for All backer, will likely lead the Finance Committee, as STAT Washington correspondent John Wilkerson noted Wednesday—predicting that "the wins that Democrats amassed on Tuesday night could breathe life into efforts to create some type of a single-payer system."
Yale University researchers estimated in August that Sanders' related legislative proposal could save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion annually. In response to those findings, the senator said that "at a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' we need Medicare for All now more than ever."
A KFF survey released last month found that 66% of Americans—including 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—support Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal.
Sharing KFF data on how the average US family's health insurance premium has soared over the past quarter-century, The Tennessee Holler declared on social media Wednesday: "Medicare for All. Now. We can't afford not to do it. It isn't radical to support it. It's radical to oppose it."