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
Vote to Check Trump's Power—Then Demand Victorious Dems Follow Through
Of all the accountability tools that will be available should the Democrats prevail on November 3, impeachment and court reform stand out as the most powerful.
Nov 01, 2026
It’s not enough for the Democrats to win the midterms. Whether they take back one or both chambers of Congress, their overriding objective must be to cripple the remainder of Donald Trump’s presidency and dismantle the MAGA movement he leads. Holding Trump and his key enablers to account for their lawlessness and corruption will be the standard for success. Without accountability, there will be no justice and no end to the growing threat of fascism in America.
Of all the accountability tools that will be available should the Democrats prevail on November 3, impeachment and court reform stand out as the most powerful. Both are implicitly on the midterm ballot, and while neither is a magic bullet for checking Trumpism, they can and must be deployed far more aggressively and urgently than in the past.
The road ahead won’t be easy, but the party may never get another opportunity.
Impeachment
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity (Trump v. United States), penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, has made it all but impossible to hold Trump accountable through ordinary criminal prosecutions. As legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has noted, Roberts’ opinion contains language that “suggests the president cannot even be investigated for his official actions,” much less indicted.
But the immunity ruling in no way undermines Congress’ impeachment powers. Even Trump’s lead lawyer in the case—D. John Sauer, now the administration’s solicitor general—acknowledged the broad scope of the impeachment power, contending that the Constitution’s Impeachment Judgment Clause (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7) requires that a president be impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate before being prosecuted criminally. Although the court rejected Sauer’s prerequisite argument, it recognized, consistent with the views of the Founders, that impeachment is a political process separate and apart from criminal prosecutions.
As Trump’s lawlessness and corruption have become more brazen and unrestrained, appeals for a third impeachment are mounting. In early October, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a series of editorials and op-eds calling on Congress to act in response to the president’s unconstitutional military operations in Iran and elsewhere; his attacks on judges, journalists, law firms, and political opponents; his threats to execute members of Congress; his reckless deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents; his inhumane mass deportations and detentions; his assault on birthright citizenship; and his use of the presidency for base self-enrichment, among myriad other “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
As Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein put it in their contribution to the Inquirer series, “Trump has turned the Constitution into a museum piece and claimed the infinite unchecked power of a dictator.” In their view, the “doubting Thomases who dismiss” a third impeachment are turning a blind eye to Trump’s “litany” of derelictions.
Even if conviction in the Senate is unlikely, the process itself has enormous value. Writing for LawFare in 2021 at the outset of Trump’s second impeachment trial, Princeton University political science professor Keith Whittington explained:
[R]emoval and disqualification are not the sole purposes of the impeachment clause. The impeachment process is a “grand inquest” in the sense that it is congressional oversight on steroids. The impeachment power gives the first, most democratic branch of the government the ability to scrutinize the actions of individuals in the other branches of government and call them to account for their actions… What’s more, the impeachment process serves as a warning to future officeholders.
There is also no reason for the Democrats to limit impeachment proceedings to the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the United States, including the justices of the Supreme Court, will all be fair game. Aware of his exposure, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly eyeing a Senate seat in Tennessee, hoping that if Marsha Blackburn becomes the state’s next governor, she will appoint him to fill her vacant seat, as senators are not considered civil officers of the US.
Many Trump aides are also reportedly seeking pardons to protect themselves from future federal criminal charges. Trump has expressed a willingness to comply, but the Constitution is very clear that the pardon power does not extend to cases of impeachment.
With the midterm elections behind them and an electoral base demanding action, we could see not one but multiple impeachment inquiries in the House—and, later, trials in the Senate—aimed at airing the facts of the Trump administration’s malfeasance for all the world to see, and serving as a catalyst for legislation to prevent another Trump-like tyrant from rising in the future.
Court Reform
John Roberts and his Republican confederates have issued a blistering succession of reactionary majority opinions, not only on presidential immunity, but also on voting rights, gerrymandering, union organizing, the death penalty, environmental protection, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, the use of dark money in politics, and equality for LGBTQ+ people, to cite just a few of the worst.
Reversing the tide and restoring our rights will require court reform. And while the most far-reaching reforms—such as more justices and term limits—will have to wait until the election of a Democratic president, a new Democratic Senate majority will be able to immediately block the confirmation of any pending or future Trump judicial nominees.
Clarence Thomas, 78, and Samuel Alito, 76, are the Supreme Court’s oldest members. Both are far beyond their salad days, and Alito has said that he is considering retirement before Trump leaves office. If either or both step aside while the Republicans hold the Senate, Trump will undoubtedly replace them with younger and possibly even more extreme jurists, such as James Ho of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, or the obsequious Florida US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who killed the Mar-a-Lago documents case. If the Democrats retake the upper chamber, the two senior justices will likely hang on as long as they can, but neither will outlast the term of the next Democratic president, who can replace them with liberals.
The outlook for the lower federal courts, where the vast majority of cases are decided, is even more favorable. A Democratic Senate majority should mean the end to new Trump judges anywhere in the country.
Where We Come In
Nothing is certain in politics, and it is entirely possible that the Democrats, once back in the majority, will try to mend fences with their MAGA adversaries in a futile attempt to restore the status quo ante Trump.
This is where we come in.
Voting is essential, but it cannot be the end of our political engagement. After the midterms, and throughout the run-up to 2028, we will need to keep the pressure on. We cannot allow the Democrats to chicken out, as they have so often in the past. There can be no more Biden nice guys, and no more Merrick Garlands. We have seen that movie before, and it isn’t worth a sequel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Election-Denying Trump Judges Preside Over Nearly Every Battleground Midterm Race: Analysis
"We must vote in numbers so overwhelming that no Trump judge could deny the truth."
Oct 27, 2026
If the Trump administration decides to challenge the outcome of any of the dozens of battleground contests in next week's midterms, there's a significant chance that one of the president's handpicked, election-denying judges will oversee the case.
That's according to a report published Tuesday by the advocacy group Demand Justice, which found that 53 of 60 battleground races for US House and Senate that will be held on November 3 "are in districts or states presided over by at least one Trump-appointed federal judge who, under oath, refused to admit that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election."
“If these judges couldn’t tell the truth about 2020, we can’t count on them to do so in 2026," said Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice. "We must vote in numbers so overwhelming that no Trump judge could deny the truth."
The report defines battleground races as Senate and House contests that analysts currently rate as either a toss up, lean Republican, or lean Democratic.
Demand Justice emphasizes that federal courts "look very different" today than they did in 2020, when the judiciary "halted Trump’s attempt to challenge the 2020 election results."
"Since then, Trump appointed Emil Bove and Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit, Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh, Michael Martin to the Eastern District of Michigan, and Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit, which hears appeals from Arizona," the report notes, pointing to courts that previously weighed 2020-related cases.
During their confirmation hearings, each of those Trump-picked judges—along with dozens of others—refused to explicitly say that Trump lost the 2020 election. As Demand Justice observed in an earlier report, Trump's judicial picks used virtually identical phrasing to evade senators' questions about the 2020 election results, saying that former President Joe Biden "was certified as the winner."
The report comes amid mounting concerns that the Trump administration could try to intervene in the midterms if the outcome is unfavorable to Trump and his Republican Party, which is seeking to maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Demand Justice cited as an alarming example the Justice Department's lawsuit aiming at blocking certification of Alaska's US Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses. Trump told reporters late last week that he ordered the DOJ to file the lawsuit, which Democratic nominee Mary Peltola is seeking to dismiss before Election Day.
“Trump's attempt to interfere in Alaska’s Senate race is a wake-up call," said Orton. "His administration will not accept election results unless the Republicans win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Take Action October 20 to End the Illegal US-Israeli War on Iran
The war is not just illegal, but massively unpopular with the US public, and Trump and his Republican enablers may take a deserved shellacking, in no small part because of the war, at the polls in November, but voting is not sufficient.
Oct 19, 2026
President Donald Trump has been less than coy about possibly ramping up his illegal war of aggression against Iran after the midterm elections, and now states the United States would not use a nuclear weapon, but possibly the “Mother of All Bombs,” MOAB for short—with apologies to that lovely town in Utah—officially the GBU-43-B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb. The target would supposedly be Iran’s energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities, which were supposedly obliterated by US and Israeli attacks over a year ago.
A few reminders are in order. The US-Israeli war on Iran is illegal under domestic and international law, lacking authorization from Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Combined with ongoing attacks on Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, the region is in flames, and putting out the fire with gasoline would be a stupendously bad move. There are indirect diplomatic talks underway, and those need to succeed, and quickly, to end this disaster harming the people of Iran, the region, and the US and global economy. Unfortunately, Trump, ever the statesmen, quipped, “I don’t know who the hell we are negotiating with.”
Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and was verifiably in compliance with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), foolishly abrogated by Trump in his first term (and former President Joe Biden, who as vice president was part of the Obama Administration that negotiated that agreement, inexplicably failed to renew while in the White House). Yet Iran still does not have nuclear weapons, and the US (thousands) and Israel (hundreds) do.
Moreover, the US plans to send more conventional weapons to Israel (the latest proposed shipment being 40,000 one-ton bombs) and Saudi Arabia, and to conclude a nuclear technology deal with the latter, which cannot help but put Iran and other countries in the region even more on edge.
The war is not just illegal, but massively unpopular with the US public, and Trump and his Republican enablers may take a deserved shellacking, in no small part because of the war, at the polls in November.
Voting is crucial, but not sufficient. On Tuesday, October 20, just two weeks before the midterms, peace advocates will hold dozens of rallies across the country to demand Peace with Iran NOW! A coalition of nearly 100 national and local organizations, including the National Iranian American Council; Action Corps; Peace Action; and veterans, faith-based, peace, and human rights organizations, are holding rallies at congressional offices to demand the following of Congress:
- Cut off funding for the war;
- Enforce the Iran War Powers Resolutions passed by Congress (which make clear the illegality of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war of aggression);
- Demand accountability for the Minab elementary school bombing on the first day of the war, which reportedly killed 120 children as well as teachers and staff AND investigate the bombing of the civilian wedding party in Kuhestak. The public deserves a full accounting, and the victims’ families deserve truth and accountability; and
- Support diplomacy, sanctions, and a peace agreement to end the war.
Looking longer term, a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone was first proposed by Iran and Egypt over five decades ago, and establishing such a zone was included in the UN Resolution that ended the first US war on Iraq. It remains to be established, but still could be a useful part of the solution to the current mess started by the US and Israel.
We need lasting solutions, including the following:
- End this war now, via diplomacy, or Congress refusing to fund it;
- End the sole authority for any president to initiate a nuclear attack, especially when Congress has not declared war;
- Dramatically reduce the War Budget, especially for nuclear weapons and Golden Dome; invest in human needs and addressing climate catastrophe; and
- Support a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
For now, the immediate priority is to demand Congress do its job, and we have the opportunity to say so, loud and clear, at pro-peace rallies on Tuesday, October 20.
Keep ReadingShow Less
7 Questions a 2026 Candidate Must Get Right to Earn Your Vote on Election Day
Use this form letter to make sure that the people you vote for have spoken out against the current administration’s rampant corruption and indecency by taking a strong public stand when it counts.
Oct 17, 2026
I happen to live in a state where MAGA enthusiasms are relatively subdued, and where Republicans skew toward old-school conservatism rather than Q-Anon crazy. The old Prescott Bush world of Connecticut. The state’s senators and the representative of my congressional district do an “admirable enough” job representing my interests and advocating for good causes, giving me just enough to complain about, but not too much. Given the times we live in, and with the midterms looming large, I rather wish I could cast a ballot in a state that where my vote might make a bigger difference; a state where senators and congressional representatives have gotten away with far too much, often for far too long. Mind you, I don’t want to live in such a place, I just want to vote there.
It is with all this in mind that I have written a letter, a request for information by a concerned and proactive citizen, that might prove useful and revealing to those who live in deeply red or contested states. It seeks information from those currently in office in those states, but it might just as easily be tailored to those seeking office as well. Anyone who chooses to use the letter can adapt it as they please. It’s all about accountability and protecting our rights as citizens. As follows:
Dear Senator X or Congressional Representative Y,
As a citizen of your state or district, I am determined to make sure that the votes I cast next month go to the most qualified and talented candidates on the ballot. For me, getting things right means, above all, making sure that the persons I vote for are committed to protecting the US Constitution and upholding the basic principles of American democracy—as all senators and congressional representatives are sworn to do. I also want to make sure that the persons I vote for have spoken out against the current administration’s rampant corruption and indecency by taking a strong public stand when it counts.
With that in mind, I would love to have you, or a member of your staff, bring me up to speed on your track record of protecting my rights as a citizen and of supporting the cause of restoring decency by answering the following questions, all very straightforward, and not at all time-consuming—and to keep things simple I have narrowed my questions down to just seven items from the last year or so.
- When, on February 6, 2026, President Donald Trump shared a video depicting Barack and Michele Obama as apes, you expressed your outrage how, and where can I locate that public response?
- When, on February 28, 2026, President Trump launched an unprovoked war against Iran, having sought no congressional approval (though the law requires it), what steps did you take to rein in this abuse of power?
- When, earlier this month, President Trump used nearly 22 million taxpayer dollars to fund a series of political ads praising himself, you spoke out how, and took what measures to uphold the rule of law?
- When, in November of 2024, President-elect Donald Trump nominated Fox News’ Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense (and here you should feel free to swap in any other agency head as you like, such as Robert Kennedy Jr., Kristi Noem, Todd Blanche, Linda McMahon, etc.), what measures did you take either that day, or in the following weeks, to protect the American people from having someone so dangerously unqualified hold that office? Again, please indicate where can I locate that information.
- When, on September 23, 2026, Donald Trump went before the United Nations General Assembly and threatened to annihilate Iran, in what public forum did you express your outrage, and what measures did you take (or are you taking) to follow up on that outrage?
- When, at a campaign rally in Grand Island Nebraska on October 6, 2026, President Trump joked about wishing Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Los Angeles and San Diego, how was your outrage expressed before the American public?
- When, on October 9, 2026, Donald Trump announced plans to brush aside legal sanctions that are currently in place by purchasing 300,000 tons of diesel fuel from Russia, followed by another 3-4.5 million tons in the months ahead, thereby tossing a lifeline to Vladimir Putin in his war against Ukraine, you registered your objections how, and what actions have you since undertaken to address this outrage?
That’s it. I have so many additional questions I would like to ask you—regarding how you have responded to the president’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, to his leveling of the East Wing of the White House, his embrace of Putin, his threats to Greenland, his self-enrichment in office, his dismissal of the Epstein scandal as a “democrat hoax,” his disgraceful posts, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement killings, the reflecting pool, the budget deficit, his support of genocide in Gaza, and so on, and on, and on… But I will accept your answers to the seven questions posed above as sufficient for the purpose of your earning or failing to earn my vote.
Please understand that a track record of silence or inaction on any one of these items, let alone on several or all, will tell me all that I need to know. Weak objections, objections devoid of action, and objections made for show won’t cut it for me either. To earn my vote, you will need to provide evidence that you opposed these dangerous and demeaning abuses and illegalities aggressively, right when they took place, not just for show, and especially not just now, when elections loom and public support for the president’s agenda is crumbling.
I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen [Name]
Keep ReadingShow Less
75% of Likely US Voters Oppose Giving Big Oil Immunity From Climate Lawsuits
Even 67% of Republican voters think states should be allowed to sue oil companies for climate damage. But Trump and GOP lawmakers are pushing to kill these suits for good.
Oct 15, 2026
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have sought to stop state-level lawsuits aimed at holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate-related damage. But most voters don't think they should be immune from accountability.
In a poll released last week by Data for Progress, 75% of likely voters said they would oppose legislation that would give fossil fuel companies "legal immunity from having to pay for the damages they have caused by worsening climate change."
Just 20% said they would either "somewhat" or "strongly" support such legislation. Meanwhile, more than half (53%) said they would "strongly" oppose it.
Opposition was strong across political affiliations: 83% of Democrats and 76% of independents said they opposed giving oil companies immunity from lawsuits, but so did 67% of Republicans.
(Graphic by Data for Progress)
In recent years, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies over their well-documented history of misleading the public about their products' role in warming the planet. These lawsuits have sought compensation for damages from worsening floods, wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
Eleven US states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia, have active lawsuits, as do at least two tribal governments and dozens of municipalities around the country, according to a tracker by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The new poll suggests voters are even more opposed to shielding oil companies from these lawsuits than they were five months ago. Another Data for Progress poll in May showed just 65% opposed legislation to shield oil companies, compared with 75% now.
"Big Oil is desperate to secure legal immunity and escape accountability for its role in the climate crisis—and the billions of dollars of damages that have followed," said Iyla Shornstein, the political director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "These poll results show that Americans across the political spectrum are opposed to putting Big Oil above the law.”
Protesters hold a banner outside the US Supreme Court as it considers the Suncor v. Boulder case in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2026. (Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
The oil industry's lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has described stopping state climate lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. Their Republican allies have pushed at all levels of government to advance that goal.
In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several GOP cosponsors joined Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) to introduce legislation that would shield fossil fuel companies from any climate-related lawsuits, dismiss pending cases, and overturn state "superfund" laws requiring the industry to pay for climate damages.
That bill failed to pass out of the House Judiciary Committee last month but could be brought forth again during the "lame-duck" session after the midterm elections in November.
ProPublica has identified at least 15 bills across 11 states that have either been enacted or proposed to shield companies, either by granting them broad immunity from liability for greenhouse gas emissions or restricting the ability of communities to sue over climate-related damages. Groups linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the right-wing Federalist Society, have coordinated many of these efforts.
Republican attorneys general in 16 states have proposed creating a "liability shield" for fossil fuel companies modeled on the one that protects gun manufacturers from liability for the misuse of their products. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a leading conservative policy shop, approved a model bill in August aiming to establish this shield in state legislatures nationwide.
The oil industry has also pushed for the right-wing Supreme Court to step in to block these lawsuits. Earlier this month, during oral arguments, oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor urged the court to block a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, that accused oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and sought to hold them financially responsible.
If the court blocks the Boulder suit before it gets to trial, it could set a precedent that derails dozens of similar lawsuits around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump, who pledged to help Big Oil executives in exchange for their donations to his presidential campaign, signed an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify and challenge state lawsuits that seek to impose financial penalties on fossil fuel companies.
His DOJ has weighed in on the Suncor v. Boulder case on the side of the oil industry and has sued at least five states that have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
The question about climate lawsuits was part of a broader set of questions Data for Progress asked voters about rising insurance costs and corporate accountability in partnership with the Insurance Fairness Project. Other results showed that many Americans want legal recourse against insurers and other companies that impose costs on consumers.
"As rising home insurance costs directly threaten housing affordability for the majority of Americans, voters are tired of their prices rising while insurance companies, energy providers, and the oil and gas industry go unchecked," said Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist for the Insurance Fairness Project. "There is a strong appetite for holding corporations accountable, both for their role in driving up costs and their role in contributing to the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Can Dems Persuade Wary Voters They Will Really End the Iran War?
If Democrats are serious about this promise, they should make a more ironclad commitment: A Democratic Congress will use its significant powers to deny any and all funding for continued US participation in this war.
Oct 15, 2026
The war on Iran—and the economic toll that President Donald Trump’s decision has taken on all aspects of Americans’ lives—is now the top issue on the campaign trail heading into November. Should Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, they will have an unmistakable mandate to end the war.
Yet many voters I talk to remain skeptical that a Democratic Congress would actually have the will and capability to stand up to Trump and force an end to the war. This is despite Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY), who hopes to be Speaker in a Democrat-led House, promising to end the war if they win. In a press conference outlining Democrats’ top priorities if they win the House, Jeffries said, “We should end, decisively, if it’s still going on, Donald Trump’s reckless and costly war in the Middle East.”
If Democrats are serious about this promise, they should make a more ironclad commitment: A Democratic Congress will use its significant powers to deny any and all funding for continued US participation in this war.
Voters need to know that if Democrats win back the Congress, they will actually use the significant leverage at their disposal and put their money where their mouth is by cutting off funding and end, decisively, this catastrophic war.
Anti-war rhetoric is good politics right now given the historic unpopularity of the Iran boondoggle, which over 70% of Americans now oppose. The conflict itself has already cost Americans over $50 billion in taxpayer funding and an additional $220 billion in economic costs from higher prices for gas, groceries, and other goods and services—more than $1,650 per household, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics.
The war is so politically toxic that Republican allies of the president who supported the war, like Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) or Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), have publicly called for the war to end as they face competitive elections. Yet when the time has come for those lawmakers to cast a yes or no vote to end the war, they have voted to continue it.
Can voters trust Jeffries and the Democrats to act differently than Republicans who say the war should end but who then enable its continuation through their actions?
Voters have heard promises about Iran before. Trump campaigned on ending forever wars and avoiding another war with Iran, only to do the opposite. Joe Biden promised to restore the Iran nuclear agreement ripped up by Trump, but then pursued a different strategy that failed to produce a deal and helped pave the way for the war. These broken promises are precisely why Democrats should understand that another open pledge to “end the war” will not be enough.
To their credit, congressional Democrats have forced—alongside a very small but growing number of Republicans—nearly two dozen votes in the House and Senate on war power resolutions to end the conflict, despite being in the minority. And their efforts have been historic—for the first time in history, both chambers of Congress passed a war powers resolution mandating the president terminate a war.
But now, the Iran war powers resolution risks withering on the vine of legal uncertainty. The president has ignored it and executive branch officials assert that the measure is not binding. Congressional efforts to challenge the White House’s interpretation in court remain nascent.
The war powers votes have been rightly applauded by activists, but most Americans still have no idea that Democrats forced passage of legislation to end the war. Voters can’t pay for gas with symbolic resolutions or buy groceries with stirring rhetoric.
Some believe that Democratic leadership unnecessarily dragged its feet on the war powers resolutions and were more eager to see Trump suffer politically from an ongoing war than actually using their power to end it. As the adage goes, “When your enemy is falling on his sword, get out of his way.” Others saw Jeffries and would-be Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) attacking Trump’s early diplomatic efforts with Iran and broad Democratic criticisms of the short-lived Memorandum of Understanding to end the war, and have been left with the impression that the anti-war rhetoric is political opportunism by lawmakers who are still beholden to pro-war groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Commttee.
It doesn’t help that certain senior officials from the previous Democratic administration have said Biden may have also attacked Iran if he got a second term and that a future Democratic successor to Trump will likely continue the war.
Sen. Mark Kelly’s (Ariz.) recent suggestion that Democrats will use the power of the purse to end the war is the best way to break this cycle, and this commitment should be publicly embraced by every Democratic candidate as well as anyone hoping to lead the party in the next Congress.
In the early days of Trump’s second term, Hakeem Jeffries infamously pushed back on activists demanding Democrats stand up to the President. “What leverage do we have? Republicans… control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. It’s their government,” he said. Voters need to know that if Democrats win back the Congress, they will actually use the significant leverage at their disposal and put their money where their mouth is by cutting off funding and end, decisively, this catastrophic war.
This article was first published by NIAC Insights.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Unveils Bill to Ban Federal Funding for Flock Cameras Amid 'Mass Surveillance Crisis'
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," the Michigan congresswoman said. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protestors, and wrongfully record our neighbors."
Oct 14, 2026
Amid what she called a "mass surveillance crisis," US Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of federal funds for powerful dragnet spying systems—including the automated license plate-reading cameras manufactured by Flock Safety.
Flock has quickly grown into a massive nationwide surveillance network with more than 120,000 of its artificial intelligence-powered cameras installed across 49 states, allowing law enforcement agencies to track and reconstruct Americans' movements, often without warrants.
While supporters describe Flock cameras as a tool to help police solve crimes, there is little evidence that they actually reduce it. There are also many documented cases of cops using the technology to stalk romantic partners, track women who've had abortions, monitor First Amendment-protected protests, and surveil people on behalf of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of its mass deportation push.
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protesters, and wrongfully record our neighbors. My bill would prevent our government on all levels from selling us out to Big Tech companies that trample our civil rights for profit.”
The bill, titled the Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act, is co-sponsored by Reps. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
It is part of a growing wave of bipartisan efforts to restrict the use of Flock cameras and other surveillance tech. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.), along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to limit government use or funding of automated license plate readers, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has proposed limits on data collection.
Tlaib's legislation would go further. Its restrictions would also extend beyond license plate readers to other "mass surveillance systems," such as those that employ facial recognition technology and biometric tracking.
It would not only prohibit federal, state, and local governments from using federal funds to purchase, operate, or access automated mass surveillance systems; it would also make state and local governments ineligible for certain federal law enforcement grants unless they stop operating or accessing mass surveillance networks that already exist.
Federal agencies would also be barred from using data derived from these systems, and they'd be required to delete certain data that has already been gathered.
The full extent to which Flock cameras are funded with federal dollars is unknown. But the company itself has identified several federal grant programs that local police departments can apply for to purchase the cameras.
"Federal funds should be used to invest in our communities in real safety solutions. We need good jobs, affordable homes, clean water, and reliable electricity. That’s what’s going to make us safer," Tlaib said at a news conference Wednesday. "Instead, our government is sacrificing our rights to big tech companies that care more about their profits, selling our data, than about our safety."
Tlaib's bill comes as backlash to Flock cameras grows around the country. A recent Data for Progress poll showed 52% of voters viewed Flock cameras unfavorably, while more than 200 cities and counties have canceled their contracts with the company.
“People everywhere are starting to recognize that conflating surveillance with safety makes communities less safe,” said Tawana Petty, a digital and data justice organizer from Detroit. “The persistent abuse of Flock cameras and other surveillance systems by law enforcement agencies across the United States, and the lack of transparency by the companies that market them, has caused an awakening among residents and city government agencies who are ridding themselves of the technologies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
MAGA Supporters Clap 'Like Seals' as Trump Yet Again Promises Secret Healthcare Fix
"He’s so completely full of shit, and voters across the country know it," said one patient advocate.
Oct 14, 2026
US President Donald Trump, who signed into law the largest Medicaid cuts in history last year and allowed private insurance premiums to skyrocket, assured supporters gathered at a rally in Wasilla, Alaska on Tuesday that he intends to enact "a truly great healthcare plan" if Republicans retain control of Congress in next month's midterm elections.
As with his earlier empty promises of a forthcoming overhaul of the US healthcare system, Trump offered virtually no detail on what his proposal would entail, saying vaguely that he wants to "stop all payments to big insurance companies" and "give the money directly to you, the people," to "go out and buy better healthcare."
While Trump's supporters in Wasilla applauded his promise—"clapping like seals," as one critic put it—patient advocates noted that Republicans have done nothing but make the country's healthcare system even more brutal and expensive over the past two years.
"All they did was cut Medicaid by $1 trillion to give tax cuts to billionaires and kick 3 million off of [Affordable Care Act] insurance," Dr. Rob Davidson, executive director of the Committee to Protect Healthcare, wrote in a social media post late Tuesday.
"He’s so completely full of shit," said Davidson, "and voters across the country know it."
Watch Trump's comments:
The advocacy group Protect Our Care noted ahead of Tuesday's rally that more than 34,000 Alaskans have health insurance coverage during Trump's second White House term. Brad Woodhouse, the group's president, said in a statement that “Trump has miserably failed Alaskans on healthcare, and now, with Election Day closing in, he has the audacity to waltz back into the state and act like none of it ever happened?"
"Make no mistake, this is a healthcare election, and Republicans have a whole lot to answer for," said Woodhouse. "With just weeks left until voters head to the polls, Trump is pulling out all the stops, from flashy rallies to desperate bribes. But the fallout from his healthcare cuts isn’t going anywhere. Families across Alaska are stretching their medications, skipping checkups, and crossing their fingers that nobody in the family gets sick enough to send them spiraling into debt."
"So Trump can put on his little show all he wants," Woodhouse added, "but eventually the stage lights will go out, the cameras will leave, and Alaskans will still be stuck paying the price."
Trump's rally came a week after the health policy organization KFF released a survey showing that 66% of Americans strongly or somewhat favor Medicare for All—the highest rate of approval since the group began asking about Medicare for All in 2017.
Separate Axios polling published Tuesday showed that a plurality of Americans support Medicare for All—and that Medicare for All's supporters outnumber its opponents nearly two to one.
Despite widespread and growing support for the proposal—which would guarantee comprehensive health coverage to everyone in the US at a lower overall cost than the status quo—Trump has openly attacked Medicare for All, falsely claiming it would cost "the entire budget of the whole country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning Signs Are Flashing Red for American Democracy
How do we prepare and fight back? If sufficiently connected with each other and backed up by labor unions; state governments; and major public, faith, business, and community institutions, municipalities offer our best hope for avoiding authoritarian takeover.
Oct 11, 2026
As scholars of democracy, we are watching America’s warning signs flash red. We expect America’s long-building constitutional crisis to soon escalate.
Earlier this year, we hosted a national workshop to assess the threats facing our society in the months leading up to and following the November midterm elections. We also studied the preparations of American social movements, communities, and institutions to meet those threats.
Our basic goals were straightforward. Every qualified voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. We must head off and block political violence. Duly certified winners should be able to take office without obstruction.
To our fellow Americans: This is not the time to look away. More than ever we need the kind of courage that history books heroize.
One product of that workshop, published this fall and signed by dozens of scholars, is The American Crisis report. The American Crisis analyzes the likelihood of the administration thwarting electoral due process; escalating military and paramilitary occupations of US cities; and other emerging threats that would worsen any electoral, constitutional, or military crisis.
It’s not hard to see the shape of what may come. In the weeks preceding Election Day, we anticipate that election administration responsibilities could be seized from states and cities, and attempts made to disrupt, sabotage, or otherwise capture their administrative powers.
Alongside this, we see a high risk of dangerous physical escalation in our streets. Federal military forces are being deployed domestically without the consent of American cities and states. These federal deployments are often coupled with a rhetoric that treats communities as territories to be occupied and controlled rather than as constituencies to be protected.
We also expect efforts to obstruct or delay the swearing-in of newly elected officials. These efforts might include the removal of the clerk in the House of Representatives or the refusal of the US vice president and outgoing House speaker to swear in newly elected Members of Congress to the US Senate and House of Representatives, respectively.
In our report, we address in detail these military, electoral, and constitutional crisis points—as well as how American communities, movements, and institutions are preparing to respond.
Neighborhoods, communities, and their governments have been thrust forward to protect themselves against federal repression and dysfunction. In the process, they have demonstrated remarkable resilience.
If sufficiently connected with each other and backed up by labor unions; state governments; and major public, faith, business, and community institutions, municipalities offer our best hope for avoiding authoritarian takeover.
However, they are often fragmented. Neighborhood networks, labor organizations, community businesses, faith communities, public institutions, and local governments frequently operate without shared language or protocol, trusted coordination, or practiced ways of acting together.
The central preparedness challenge is not only to build more capacity, but to connect, test, and mobilize what already exists. Intermunicipal communications and coordination systems will serve as critical crisis infrastructure in the months ahead.
The report draws one other major conclusion. Following the November elections, the US Congress must fully assert itself as the primary branch of the federal government. The generation of 1776 gave Congress supremacy over the rest of the federal government. This is the reason the legislative branch is described first in the US Constitution, as Article I.
Over many years, much of congressional supremacy, representing the sovereignty of the American people and their States, has been abdicated or stolen. At this moment, without Congress, there is no republic, only dictatorship. If the US is to remain a republic in 2027, members of Congress must honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution by ensuring a successful democratic transition of power.
To our fellow Americans: This is not the time to look away. More than ever we need the kind of courage that history books heroize. We implore you to step forward and face the crisis. The full report is available: americancrisis.report.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the 9 Former Federal Workers Running for Congress
All Americans who want to continue living in a democratic society need to know about these candidates and support their campaigns.
Oct 11, 2026
This article introduces you to nine contemporary heroes.
All nine were on the frontlines of President Donald Trump’s authoritarian attack on our democratic society.
All nine had careers serving the American people in socially essential government jobs. All nine could not tolerate seeing their career work undermined, and even outright destroyed, by DOGE and MAGA’s contempt for science, the rule of law, public safety, and the welfare of the common person.
If we want to continue living in a society guided by scientific knowledge with a government that provides for and protects the education, health, and safety of all Americans—these are the candidates we need to elect to Congress.
All nine are fighting back in the best possible way.
They are running for federal office.
They are running to preserve popular sovereignty and our constitutional democratic republic.
All nine won their primaries and, if they win on November 3, they will enter the US House of Representatives on January 3.
Their goal is to rebuild the best traditions and practices of the US government so that it once again serves all the people not just a kleptocratic elite.
The nine candidates are Sam Forstag in Montana’s 1st District, Zach Dembo in Kentucky’s 6th, Lauren Reinhold in Kansas’ 1st, Mike Masuda in California’s 5th, Alissa Ellman in New York’s 24th, Trina Swanson in Minnesota’s 8th, Dr. Kristin Hook in Texas’ 21st, Tom Perriello in Virginia’s 5th, and Chris Backenmeyer in Nebraska’s 1st.
Together, along with two non-federal candidates (Tamara Bavendam in Tennessee’s 66th House District and Chuck Borges in Maryland’s 29th Senate District), they are endorsed by an ad hoc group called Federal Workers United Congressional Slate. They are also all endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).
All Americans who want to continue living in a democratic society need to know about these candidates and support their campaigns.
Why? Because these nine candidates know how a healthy US federal government operates; and the essential services it, and only it, can and must deliver for the people. Better than any group of people, honest, hard-working federal employees know how to rebuild our government in the wake of the self-serving destructiveness of DOGE and Trump.
If we want to continue living in a society guided by scientific knowledge with a government that provides for and protects the education, health, and safety of all Americans—these are the candidates we need to elect to Congress.
No group of non-incumbent candidates have ever been so experienced in these essential matters. These nine patriots have the experience and knowledge to guide the rest of Congress as we make our government whole again.
If you don’t believe me, read the following platform, which all nine candidates have endorsed. In my opinion, it is as eloquent an expression of faith in our democratic republic, as laid out in the constitution, as anything I have read in the 21st Century:
Federal Oversight and Accountability Platform
This policy platform was drafted by federal workers across the Executive Branch and represents a shared vision for partnership between Congress and the federal workforce. Through this partnership, federal workers will help Congress fulfill its oversight responsibilities, protect its Constitutional powers, and ensure the Executive Branch delivers for the public good as Congress intended. Federal workers will provide insight into developments at federal agencies that require Congressional attention, offer technical expertise to inform legislation, and share strategies borne from lessons learned on the ground to help preserve the legislative and budgetary rights and responsibilities established by the Constitution.
This platform is organized into three "programs of tactics" for Congressional partners, as outlined below.
Program 1: Information and technical expertise. Position federal workers as a steady source of information and technical expertise to help Congress deliver oversight and effective legislation.
Program 2: Checks and balances. Strengthen the ability of federal workers to uphold their responsibility to ensure that laws, regulations, and legal policies are followed, to report wrongdoing when they see it, and to impede actions that undermine Constitutional checks and balances.
Program 3: Institutional capacity and workforce protections for the public good. Provide broad labor protections and unemployment supports for federal workers to address the loss of institutional knowledge and ensure the long-term strength of the civil service for the benefit of the public.
These programs contain a mix of legislative statutory components, non-legislative statutory components, and non-statutory components. The legislative statutory components can be implemented when majority support in Congress has been attained or when bi-partisan negotiations provide an earlier opportunity. Non-statutory components allow Congress to act without majority support.
Please support Sam, Zach, Lauren, Alissa, Trina, Kristin, Mike, Tom, and Chris.
Sam Forstag was a fire jumper with the Forest Service; Zach Dembo, an assistant US attorney; Lauren Reinhold, an attorney adviser with the Social Security Administration; Alissa Ellman, a program support assistant in the Department of Veterans Affairs; Trina Swanson was a director of international operations in the Refugee and International Operations District, and US Citizenship and Immigration Services, in the Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Kristin Hook is a biological scientist, who was in the US Government Accountability Office and, previously, was a science and technology policy fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Senate; Mike Masuda is an engineer and was a Foreign Affairs officer in the US Department of State, and American Association for the Advancement of Science Science & Technology Policy fellow; Chris Backenmeyer, a deputy assistant secretary for Assistance Coordination-Regional and Multilateral Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Department of State; Tom Perriello, a US special envoy for Sudan, Bureau of African Affairs, US Department of State; (Tamara Bavendam, a senior adviser, NIH; and Chuck Borges, a chief data officer, Social Security Administration, and retired US Navy commander).
The amount of scientific knowledge and technical expertise represented by just these 11 people is staggering. Now multiply that by the thousands for all the excellent, upstanding federal workers—people of integrity who were excellent at their jobs serving the American people—who lost their jobs in DOGE purges.
These 11 are not only representing the more than 300,000 federal workers who were abruptly fired, or were forced out of their jobs, in the most unjust and life-destabilizing purge in recent US labor history; they are representing millions-upon-millions of Americans they served directly—and truly all of us, since everyone of us benefited from their work.
Every federal worker takes an oath of office similar to the president’s. Unlike the current president, these 11, like federal workers all across the country, take that oath seriously.
The nine congressional candidates were impacted by Trump, Elon Musk, and all their corruption. They found themselves on the other side of their federal careers. Instead of licking their wounds and turning their back on a system that betrayed them, they are standing up to preserve, protect, and defend their country, which is our country, and its Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.
That’s why they’re running for Congress.
Let’s lift them to victory; for the benefit of all Americans!
For more information on all nine congressional candidates go to the Federal Workers United Congressional Slate website.
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