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
Congress Hasn’t Authorized Trump’s Iran War—or Ended It
The House voted to halt unauthorized hostilities; the Senate blocked a final vote, leaving troops and civilians inside a war lawmakers refuse to own.
Jul 29, 2026
On July 23, the House of Representatives voted 214-208 to direct President Donald Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them. Hours later, the Senate rejected a motion to bring a separate war powers resolution out of committee, 47-49.
The Senate did not authorize the war. It did not even vote on the resolution itself. It blocked the measure before senators had to answer the central question: Should the United States continue fighting a war Congress has never approved?
The war continued anyway.
That is the dangerous precedent now taking shape in Washington. The president can begin or expand military operations, and Congress is left trying to stop them after the bombs have fallen and retaliation has begun. If opponents cannot clear committees, procedural votes, narrow majorities, and a likely presidential veto, inertia does the work of authorization. No lawmaker has to cast a clear vote for the war, but troops and civilians must still live with the consequences.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Trump has since expanded direct US involvement without obtaining a congressional mandate. By July 22, the war had killed 18 US service members and injured hundreds more. The Pentagon put its cost at $37.5 billion, a figure that includes some anticipated expenses through September 30. A July Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 79% of Americans expected the conflict to drag on, while only 37% approved of the US strikes.
Iranian civilians have paid a far heavier price. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that by April 10, 1,701 civilians, including at least 254 children, had been killed since the war began. Iran’s Health Ministry said another 50 civilians were killed and 500 wounded during the renewed US strikes in July. An anti-war politics worthy of the name cannot ask Americans to care about their own soldiers while treating Iranian deaths as background noise.
For working-class families, the war is not an argument about executive theory. It arrives as an extended deployment, a flag-draped coffin, a long recovery from injury, higher fuel prices, and another demand that public money be redirected toward a conflict with no visible conclusion. The officials who refuse to define the mission do not bear those costs equally.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who introduced the House resolution, said the war has “no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal.” The administration has moved among overlapping justifications: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, retaliating for attacks, protecting US forces, and keeping commercial shipping open, as well as degrading Tehran’s regional military capabilities. Each objective can be used to justify another strike. None provides a measurable definition of victory or a credible route out.
Republican leaders argue that limiting Trump during active hostilities would weaken the United States and endanger deployed forces. The White House says the president needs flexibility to repel Iranian attacks and protect American personnel. It also argues that the House’s concurrent resolution lacks the force of law and warns that the measure could create “operational paralysis.”
A president must be able to protect troops from an immediate attack. That narrow defensive authority cannot become a blank check to define and prolong an entire war without Congress. Otherwise, each deployment creates the danger later invoked to expand it: US forces enter the conflict, Iran attacks them, and protecting them becomes the rationale for another round of strikes.
Sending troops into an open-ended conflict without a public mandate is not support. It is political abandonment.
Veterans have made that point more clearly than many lawmakers. After an earlier House war powers vote, Common Defense, a grassroots organization of veterans and military families, said that “veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans” and called congressional action essential to giving the public a voice. Supporting troops requires more than praising their sacrifice after they die. It requires telling them what the mission is, what limits govern it, what success looks like, and when it ends.
The House vote showed that opposition to unauthorized war is not entirely partisan. All 210 Democrats present joined Republicans Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Tom Barrett (Mich.). In the Senate, Republican Susan Collins (Maine) supported bringing the resolution forward, while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted with Republicans to block it.
But the larger story is institutional, not personal. Senators avoided a direct vote on whether to authorize or end the war. Procedural language cannot erase political responsibility. A senator who prevents Congress from considering restraint helps preserve the conditions under which the war continues.
The House resolution alone cannot stop the fighting. That makes Congress’ power over military funding the next real test. The White House has requested an $87.6 billion supplemental package, saying most of it would address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury. The request includes $67.1 billion for the Pentagon, with $21 billion of that amount designated for munitions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that about one-third of the entire package is driven by Iran war costs; the rest funds other administration priorities.
Lawmakers cannot credibly call a war unauthorized while financing its continuation without meaningful limits. Any new funding should prohibit offensive operations against Iran after a brief period for immediate force protection unless Congress passes a specific authorization. That authorization should define the enemy, mission, geographic scope, reporting requirements, and expiration date. Renewal should require another affirmative vote.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
Congressional authorization is not bureaucratic interference. It is the democratic process through which elected officials must tell the public why troops are being sent into danger. Trump owns the decision to wage and escalate this war. But lawmakers who block restraint, keep the money flowing, and refuse to demand a defined mission are not neutral observers. They are helping sustain a war they have never been willing to own.
Congress has not authorized Trump’s Iran war. Until lawmakers either define and limit the mission or stop paying for it, troops and civilians will remain trapped between a president claiming the power to continue and a legislature unwilling to take responsibility for ending it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Casar Demands Hearing After OpenAI Model Goes 'Full Cybercriminal' on Another Firm
"AI systems are creating real-world consequences," said one expert. "Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
Jul 29, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar on Wednesday called for a congressional hearing following reporting that the OpenAI artificial intelligence model that autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing also independently hacked another tech company.
Akshat Bubna, chief technology officer at New York-based Modal Labs, told Reuters that OpenAI's model exploited vulnerable code written by a customer that was hosted on the company's platform.
Last week, calls for stronger AI guardrails mounted after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted to a "significant security incident" during evaluation of one of the ChatGPT maker's models.
The target of that breach, the popular open-source platform Hugging Face, said Tuesday that the OpenAI model—widely described in the press as "rogue"—broke into a sandbox "hosted on a third-party provider's infrastructure" and used it to launch a broader attack.
Bubna stressed that Modal's platform was "not compromised in any way."
Experts underscored that OpenAI's purportedly "rogue" model was, in fact, performing a specific assigned task, which involved executing complex cyberattacks and exploiting vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
However, AI specialists said the incident illustrated the problem of misalignment. As artificial intelligence advances to the point where it will very likely outsmart humans, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous to the point where pioneers and preeminent experts in the field, including Altman, believe there is a growing chance that AI could one day cause human extinction.
Responding to Wednesday's reporting, Casar (D-Texas)—who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus—said on social media: "Today we learned more disturbing news about OpenAI's security breach. Sam Altman should answer questions under oath."
"Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies about the threat their technology poses to national security and American jobs," he argued.
Casar has been a leading voice in Congress for AI regulation. However, instead of advocating a pause or slowdown on AI development, he has focused on trying to ensure that the economic benefits of the rapidly developing technology are broadly shared and that companies cannot use AI to exploit workers or consumers.
Last year, Casar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act, a proposal to curb the growing trend of “surveillance-based price setting" in which companies utilize customer data to maximize profits.
In May, Casar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for a tax on artificial intelligence firms that would fund programs to help workers replaced by AI.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen also weighed in Wednesday on what it called the "growing national security and public safety implications of frontier AI systems."
“OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is in Washington this week, and he should not be allowed to leave DC without Congress seeking to understand, from him, publicly how one of the company’s most advanced AI systems escaped its intended testing environment and reportedly carried out offensive cyber operations affecting multiple companies,” JB Branch, the group's director of federal AI governance, said in a statement.
"The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened, why existing safeguards failed, and what concrete steps are being taken to prevent it from happening again," he continued. "Most importantly, Congress must act, not rely on voluntary action by Big Tech companies. AI systems are creating real-world consequences. Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
“The federal government must develop emergency authorities and response capabilities for advanced AI systems," Branch added.
"If a frontier model demonstrates dangerous autonomous behavior, the government cannot be left relying solely on private companies to decide when—or whether—to pause, contain, or disable it. A credible national emergency preparedness framework is now an essential component of AI governance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Election 'Reforms' Are a Blueprint for Constitutional Capture
Trump's project is less an effort to reform the electoral system than an attempt to hold it hostage from within its own legal machinery.
Jul 29, 2026
In the final days before Congress's summer recess, House Republicans advanced Donald Trump-backed voting restrictions by embedding them in legislation intended to prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. The legislative tactic reveals the nature of a broader project: using formal legal channels to alter the balance the Constitution establishes among voters, the states, Congress, and institutions of oversight.
American democracy is not a fixed ideal; it is a delicate mechanism sustained by election laws and institutional constraints. For that reason, what Trump and his allies are pursuing under the banner of "election integrity" is not merely a revision of a few administrative procedures. Their proposed legislation would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo identification at the ballot box and, alongside other proposals, would shift power away from voters and toward partisan institutions. That is the central contradiction: using the law as an instrument for hollowing out the spirit of the Constitution. From this perspective, Trump's project is less an effort to reform the electoral system than an attempt to hold it hostage from within its own legal machinery.
The first element of this project is an effort to revive the structural defect in the Electoral Count Act and the role of the vice president by reopening the very ambiguity that turned the transfer of power in 2021 into a national crisis. After January 6, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was unclear about the vice president's role and the process for objecting to state electoral votes. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 clarified that the vice president's role is purely ceremonial and that the office carries no authority to reject a state's electoral votes. It also raised the threshold for filing an objection from one member of the House and one senator to one-fifth of the members of each chamber.
Trump's political logic draws from the same interpretation that, in 2020, sought to grant the vice president or Congress a role extending beyond the counting of electoral votes. Weakening the 2022 reforms, or interpreting them expansively, would revive the notion that partisan officials may decide the validity of an election result after the votes have been cast—the same ambiguity that brought the peaceful transfer of power to the brink of collapse in 2021.
Allowing a candidate to rewrite the rules of the game in order to shield himself from defeat is not election reform.
The second element is the weaponization of the "independent state legislature theory," an interpretation under which state legislatures would be largely insulated from review by state courts and state constitutions when regulating federal elections. In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the maximalist version of this theory by a 6-3 vote, affirming that state legislatures do not operate outside the legal framework of their own states.
The theory nevertheless remains attractive to Trump's project because it could detach the making of election rules—and, under crisis conditions, the selection of electors—from state-level systems of checks and balances and place that authority in the hands of aligned legislatures. When some of those legislatures do not accurately reflect the popular vote because of gerrymandering, removing gubernatorial and judicial oversight does not strengthen federalism. It concentrates power in a partisan institution.
The third element is the weakening of the Voting Rights Act under the guise of "integrity" through restrictions on voting. Strict identification requirements, voter-roll purges, and limits on absentee voting are justified as safeguards against fraud, but their burden falls more heavily on people with less access to official documents and administrative resources. This raises concerns under the 15th Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting and the 24th Amendment's ban on imposing a financial cost on the right to vote.
A disparate impact, by itself, is not sufficient to establish a violation. Yet Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits practices that, under the totality of the circumstances, result in the denial or abridgment of voting rights on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority. Eliminating voting mechanisms on which low-income communities and minorities depend therefore cannot be justified simply by repeating allegations of fraud—particularly when Trump's sweeping claims of fraud in the 2020 election were not supported by credible evidence. The phrase "Jim Crow 2.0" refers precisely to this reproduction of voter disenfranchisement through modern administrative tools.
The fourth element is federalism in the abstract and the Republican contradiction over states' rights. For decades, the party has placed "states' rights" at the center of its political discourse and has denounced nationwide standards proposed by Democrats, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, as exercises in federal centralization. Yet Trump's project now calls on the federal government to impose stringent restrictions on voter registration and voting while simultaneously granting greater authority to aligned state legislatures.
The Constitution assigns shared roles to the states and Congress in the administration of federal elections. The Elections Clause in Article I gives the states primary authority, while also allowing Congress to alter election regulations. The problem lies in the selective use of this division of power: defending state autonomy when it obstructs the expansion of voting rights, and invoking federal authority when it entrenches restrictions favored by Republicans. This is no longer coherent federalism. It is an instrument for concentrating electoral power.
In the American legal system, elections are not merely political contests; they are legal processes that guarantee the legitimacy of government. The measures Trump presents as electoral cleanup or election integrity—from restricting access to the ballot to expanding the authority of state legislatures and weakening the safeguards adopted after January 6—all move in the same direction: transferring power away from voters and institutions of oversight and toward partisan actors who may determine both the rules and the validity of the result.
Opposition to this project should not be reduced to Democratic fears of losing elections. Defending the states' role in determining the method by which electors are chosen, judicial review, the lawful authority of Congress, and the equal voting rights of citizens means defending the balance that prevents the Constitution from becoming an administrative document placed at the service of one individual. Allowing a candidate to rewrite the rules of the game in order to shield himself from defeat is not election reform. It is the very danger the architects of the American republic sought to contain by dispersing power and constructing a system of mutual checks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SpaceX Stock Purchases by US Lawmakers Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns
"Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading."
Jul 28, 2026
Congressional lawmakers from both major parties who have purchased stock in Elon Musk's SpaceX—including some serving on committees whose work intersects with the company's business—are facing increasing scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, CNBC reported Tuesday.
According to CNBC's Luke Fountain and Justin Papp, six lawmakers—Reps. William Timmons (R-SC), John McGuire (R-Va.), Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), and John James (R-Mich.)—or members of their immediate families bought between roughly $83,000 and $245,000 in SpaceX shares combined. All of the purchases occurred within six days of SpaceX's June 12 initial public offering.
Although all of the purchases were legal and there is no evidence of insider trading, Fountain and Papp noted that "five of the lawmakers serve on committees whose work intersects with SpaceX’s defense, satellite, [artificial intelligence], federal contracting, or securities businesses."
Responding to the report, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) took to social media to call for a full ban on congressional stock trading.
Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street.They’re not doing it for the interest of their constituents — it’s in the interest of their pockets.We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) July 28, 2026 at 1:00 PM
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Stop Insider Trading Act in a bipartisan vote; however, the current legal framework is primarily based on preventing self-dealing and boosting disclosure, not a trading ban.
Last year, Jayapal introduced the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, and Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) revived the ETHICS Act, both of which would "prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures."
Monday's disclosure comes as SpaceX is already facing intense scrutiny over its growing influence in Washington, DC. In 2023, environmental groups sued the Federal Aviation Administration over approvals allowing expanded Starship launches in South Texas, arguing the agency violated federal environmental law by failing to adequately assess impacts on nearby wildlife refuges and endangered species amid a string of failed launches in which rockets exploded.
Earlier this year, tribal and conservation groups filed a lawsuit aiming to stop the US Fish and Wildlife Service from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
While conservationists contend that SpaceX launches and explosions threaten wildlife and sensitive habitats, astronomers have warned that the company's rapidly expanding Starlink satellite constellation is cluttering near-Earth orbit, degrading dark skies, and interfering with astronomical observations.
Critics have also raised concerns about Musk's relationship with federal regulators, with questions repeatedly raised surrounding the independence of agencies responsible for overseeing SpaceX as the company seeks further launch approvals.
While Musk's short-lived stint as the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency ended last year, a mix of former employees from Musk companies SpaceX, Tesla, and xAI were granted access or assigned to at least 15 executive branch agencies during 2025, according to reporting by The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, Wired, and other outlets.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Again Votes to Stop Trump’s Iran War—but GOP Senators and Fetterman Sink Similar Resolution
"We cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who introduced the House resolution.
Jul 23, 2026
For the second time in as many months, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to end his illegal war on Iran, but later on Thursday GOP senators and Democrat John Fetterman blocked a similar measure in the upper chamber.
H.Con.Res.89, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and sponsored by 15 Democrats and one Republican, passed by a vote of 214-208, with co-sponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and three other GOP lawmakers—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—breaking ranks to cast "yes" votes.
“Today’s bipartisan vote on my war powers resolution to end this war in Iran was a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war and focus on their lives right here at home," Jayapal said in a statement. "A majority of this Congress voted to end the war yet again, and sent yet another clear order to the president that Congress will not continue to tolerate this illegal war."
"The vote also put pressure on Republicans to stand up for their constituents and the Constitution," the congresswoman continued. "Out of respect for our US servicemembers, civilian lives in Iran and Lebanon, the American taxpayers, and our Constitution, we cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue."
Massie said ahead of Thursday's vote: "American servicemen and women are dying, and gas and fertilizer prices are soaring. It’s time to end this war."
At least 18 US troops have been killed and more than 430 others have been wounded during the 145-day US-Israeli war of choice. Iran's Health Ministry said earlier this week that more than 3,500 Iranians, including at least 496 women and 384 children and infants, have been killed by US and Israeli attacks. More than 26,500 Iranians, including at least 4,000 women and 1,621 children, have been wounded.
Around 30 people have been killed by Iranian counterattacks targeting US-allied Mideast nations, while a simultaneous Israeli war on Lebanon has killed or wounded upward of 15,000 people, according to Lebanese officials.
"Trump needs to end his illegal war now," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said on social media.
Jayapal said in her statement: “From the beginning, this war has had no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal. Congress has not been consulted. And hostilities have been driven over and over again by a president who won his election by promising to end forever wars. This administration has clearly gotten us into a war they have no clue how to get us out of."
Later on Thursday, US senators voted 47-49 against advancing a similar war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote with nearly all Democratic caucus members, while Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined all other present Republicans in voting against the measure. GOP Sens. Katie Britt (Alabama), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.) missed the vote.
"When are Senate Republicans going to stand up?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber floor. "Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war."
Minority Leader @SenSchumer (D-NY) urges GOP to support Iran war powers resolution: "When are Senate Republicans going to stand up? … Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war." pic.twitter.com/XyCTq1TdKj
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2026
During his second term, Trump has ordered US military attacks or operations in Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and a campaign of high-seas boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The self-described "peace president" has ordered attacks on 11 countries through his two terms in office—the aforementioned nations, plus Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan during his first administration.
Trump has also threatened to attack, seize, or acquire by other means Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. He is also reportedly weighing strikes on Mali targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated militants.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limit such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
Congressional Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump’s dubious argument that quitting his negotiated ceasefire with Iran resets the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
The first war powers resolutions passed during Trump's presidency came in 2019, when the House and Senate ordered the president to end unauthorized US military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The Senate subsequently failed to override Trump's veto of the directive.
Last month, both the House and Senate passed resolutions directing Trump to halt his war on Iran. The president has almost entirely ignored the directives, prompting Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)—who authored both an unsuccessful war powers resolution in a bid to stop the US boat bombings and the successful Iran order passed last month—to say Thursday that he will try to sue the administration for failing to obey Congress.
"I'm dropping a resolution today... that we should be suing the administration for not following... the resolution that was passed in both the House and Senate," Meeks told reporters outside the Capitol, where lawmakers are set to go on summer recess.
"When we get back next week, I'm going to force a vote on that, so that we can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Military Spending Request Is Really Big Money
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like.
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump is asking for $1,500,000 million for the military for next year. That’s close to $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) more than we were spending on the military in fiscal year 2025, before Trump took office.
This increase is huge by any measure. It comes to around $4,600 per household. It is around 8% of the total budget. This spending request dwarfs sums that are often the subject of major debates in Washington.
For example, last year Democrats pushed to have the enhanced subsidies in the Affordable Care Act exchanges extended. This would have cost $30 billion a year, one twentieth of what Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are demanding.
People may recall Elon Musk gleefully putting the US Agency for International Development into the “wood chipper” last spring. While ending this program is expected to lead to 4 million additional deaths over the next four years, it only saved around $35 billion a year. That is less than 6% of the increase in military spending that Trump is asking for.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds?
The annual cost of extending the enhanced child tax credit, which cut child poverty in half, was around $100 billion a year, less than one-fifth of Trump’s proposed increase. And the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was $550 million, less than one thousandth of the additional spending for the military that Trump is demanding. (It’s in the chart, just small to see.)
People need to know that Trump’s military spending request is really big money, compared to almost anything else that ever comes up for public debate for Congress. Unfortunately, because of incompetent or corrupt budget reporting, few news accounts make any effort to put these huge numbers in a context that makes them understandable for their audience. As a result, most people will probably have little idea of what is at stake with this military request.
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like. We got along fine with the former level of military spending, which almost everyone, including Donald Trump in his first term, considered adequate.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds? Most of us knew that making our former allies into enemies was not a good idea, but Trump is placing a huge price tag on this mistake. And remember, this is Trump’s own number, not his critics’.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Healthcare System Is Failing; Medicare for All Is the Solution
When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science.
Jul 23, 2026
The following remarks were delivered as testimony to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Medicare for All Shadow Hearing on July 22, 2026.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about our urgent need for Medicare for All. My name is Dr. Diljeet Singh, and as a practicing gynecologic oncologist, I do not exaggerate when I say our healthcare system is in dire straits. Every day in my clinic, I see patients struggling with the cost of healthcare: a woman on chemotherapy who cannot afford her anti-nausea prescription, or a patient forced to choose between an MRI copay and groceries for her family. If you walked through my clinic, you would know that this is no time to be tinkering with unproven reforms or complex regulations. It is long past time for Medicare for All.
I care for a part-time elementary school teacher whose health plan did not cover routine preventive care. Instead of getting regular Pap smears over the years, she arrived in my office with advanced cervical cancer. She underwent radical surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation that fundamentally changed her body and her life—and she still has no guarantee of a cure.
Or consider another patient of mine who works two part-time jobs, with no health insurance. She ignored severe abdominal pain until it doubled her over. In the emergency room, she was told she had a potentially cancerous mass. She came to me for care, and thankfully, it turned out to be a non-cancerous ovarian cyst, cured by surgery. Yet, even in this best-case medical scenario, she still owes thousands of dollars. A treatable, curable medical problem absorbed her children’s college savings and her retirement money.
When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed.
I am speaking to you today as president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization of more than 25,000 health professionals nationwide. We are working to achieve universal single-payer healthcare—free from corporate middlemen, copays, deductibles, prior authorization, and the risk of medical debt. Similar countries around the world provide care to all while spending only half of what we spend—yet we die younger, face higher maternal mortality, and lose more newborns. We already spend enough money, but at least 35 cents of every healthcare dollar is wasted on insurance administration and corporate profit instead of patient care.
The root cause of this failure is the corporate takeover of healthcare, where financial interests take precedence over the sacred oath we swore as physicians—to prioritize our patients’ health and make evidence-based, patient-centered decisions free from third-party interference.
At PNHP, we conducted a two-year research project speaking with doctors about working in a profit-driven system where financial goals dictate clinical care. We found that doctors, like nurses, suffer from profound “moral injury”—the acute psychological harm caused by systemic barriers that prevent us from providing compassionate, evidence-based care. When the drive for profit outweighs patient health, professionals and patients alike are betrayed, driving clinicians out of medicine in increasing numbers.
Reversing this crisis requires recentering healthcare on patients and aligning with its true mission. The most commonsense solution is single-payer Medicare for All. When everybody has guaranteed access to high-quality care without financial barriers, physicians can focus solely on their patients’ needs and patients can trust that our recommendations are based on science and their healthcare needs—not corporate bottom lines.
Doctors, nurses, and patients understand that we need Medicare for All. Now we need Congress to understand the same thing—and to act with all of the urgency that this moment requires.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Are Closer Than We Think to Losing Our Wild Neighbors
You do not need to fire a shot to kill an animal and imperil its entire species’ existence—you only need to take away the place it lives. A Trump administration Endangered Species Act rollback would do just that.
Jul 23, 2026
There is a vision of this country that still exists to anyone who grew up near its wild places: manatees drifting beneath a dock, Florida leafwing butterflies fluttering through the wind, yellow-billed cuckoos migrating in the spring and fall. For generations of Americans, these were not rare sightings. They were proof that people and wildlife could share the same natural inheritance
That inheritance is now under direct threat, and the erosion is no longer incremental. It is accelerating at an unprecedented pace.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration formally rescinded the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—a single word that has helped to protect this nation's imperiled wildlife for more than 50 years. For decades, "harm" was understood to include not just the direct killing or injuring of an endangered animal, but the destruction or degradation of the habitat that animal depends on to breed, feed, migrate, or shelter. That understanding was not a bureaucratic technicality. It was the legal recognition of a basic ecological truth: An animal cannot survive the loss of its home and its resources for daily living any more than a person can. Each of these species has a story that will end the same way without habitat protection: not a quick death by bullet but a slow death by a thousand cuts.
Remove that definition, and you remove the government's ability to regulate clear-cutting old growth forest filled with an endangered bird’s nesting sites, draining a wetland key for an endangered frog’s breeding, or dumping pollution into the lagoon where sea turtles and marine mammals graze. You do not need to fire a shot to kill an animal and imperil its entire species’ existence. You only need to take away the place it lives.
Habitat destruction is already the leading driver of species decline in the US, and this rollback removes one of the few legal tools available to slow it.
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 with overwhelming bipartisan support, and Republican President Richard Nixon signed it, "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved." In the more than five decades since, the ESA has prevented the extinction of an estimated 99% of the species placed under its protection—one of the most successful conservation records in the world.
Rescinding the definition of harm will eviscerate the ESA. And it does so under the pretense of streamlining obstacles to American economic growth, as if the nation's economy runs on oil, gas, logging, and mining alone. But our national economy—and our national welfare—are inextricably linked to healthy, thriving wildlife and habitats. Wildlife watching, for example, supports a $250.2 billion industry in the US. Commercial and recreational fisheries generate $319 billion in sales and sustain 2.1 million jobs. Hunting and fishing support $400 billion in annual economic value. And the ecosystem services nature provides for free—clean water, crop pollination, flood control, pest suppression—are valued at an estimated $5 trillion a year.
Habitat destruction is already the leading driver of species decline in the US, and this rollback removes one of the few legal tools available to slow it.
Consider the Florida manatee, listed as threatened under the ESA. Manatees lack blubber and cannot fully regulate their own body temperature; in winter, their survival depends on access to water near 72°F. Coastal development and polluted runoff have devastated the seagrass beds manatees depend on and degraded the natural springs that once kept them warm through the winter. More than half of Florida's manatees now survive only because they cluster near the artificial warm-water discharge of aging power plants. Without the harm definition, it will be exponentially harder to protect and restore their foraging and sheltering habitats they need to survive and recover.
The same pattern will repeat across the country. The North American wolverine depends on vanishing high-elevation snowpack at risk of being lost to development and expanding winter recreation. The whooping crane, one of the rarest birds in North America, needs undisturbed wetland corridors to complete its migration. In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, polar bears depend on undisturbed denning sites; seismic testing, vehicle traffic, and aircraft noise associated with oil exploration can cause mother bears to abandon their dens and cubs. For five decades, the ESA enabled economic activities in the habitats species need to survive and recover, with permitting guardrails to ensure adequate protections. Now that the administration has eliminated those guardrails, it’s open season for industry to sacrifice habitat—and the future of our imperiled wildlife species. Defenders of Wildlife, along with other conservation organizations, has already gone to federal court to challenge this unlawful action.
At the same time, we’re standing up to defend the ESA itself from anti-wildlife members of Congress who favor unfettered logging, mining, grazing, and drilling, no matter the cost to endangered animals—or to our irreplaceable natural heritage. One of the most effective actions concerned citizens can take right now is to call their representative and senators and oppose any effort to undermine this bedrock wildlife law.
We are closer than most people realize to losing the manatees in our canals, the whooping cranes in our wetlands, and the wolverines in our mountains. What remains to be seen is whether we act while there is still habitat left to save.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Renews Assault on Iran, Dems Prepare Another War Powers Resolution
Congress already passed one resolution last month, but Trump has defied it, claiming that his latest attacks are part of a new war against Iran.
Jul 22, 2026
Democrats introduced another war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday that they hope will strengthen their efforts to stop President Donald Trump from continuing to escalate his war with Iran.
Both houses of Congress already passed a war powers resolution in June, but it was not signed by Trump and lacked the force of law.
Trump has refused to comply with its order to withdraw troops from hostilities in the region, claiming that his renewed attacks on Iran this month constitute a new conflict that resets the 60-day countdown before Congress can intervene.
According to Politico, Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expects the resolution to come to the floor for a vote on Thursday, just before Congress adjourns for a five-week summer recess.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday, is expected to have the support of every Democrat, as well as Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted for the last resolution.
A co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), said on Wednesday that Democrats, as well as these "Republicans of courage and conscience," were united in their goal of sending "a message that this war has got to stop."
Jayapal said recent developments, including the deaths of four US soldiers over the past week, had raised the urgency of ending the war now.
"This war has killed 18 US service members, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and displaced millions of civilians," she noted.
A new resolution may also strengthen a separate effort by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who is planning to introduce legislation that would block any additional federal funding for attacks against Iran not authorized by Congress. He also said he was preparing a lawsuit challenging Trump's continuation of the war without congressional approval, which he has called "legally baseless."
As the administration requests tens of billions more in military spending in order to fund the war, Democrats in the Senate last week blocked debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday with limited Democratic support, though it did not contain the separate Iran War funding package.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Urge Senate to Reject Israel Military Integration in NDAA Passed by House
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
Jul 22, 2026
The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted Wednesday in favor of a record $1.15 trillion military spending authorization bill containing a highly controversial provision to increase cooperation between the US and Israeli armed forces.
House lawmakers voted 216-212, almost entirely along party lines, to pass HR 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027.
Republicans voted 209-7 in favor, while Democrats voted 205-6 against the measure. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) voted "yes." Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California also voted in favor of the bill.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) submitted an amendment to strip Section 219—which would integrate American and Israeli research and development—from the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday called the NDAA "an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
Massie said that "our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now."
On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) described Section 219 as "an outrageous threat to our country's security and autonomy."
"Americans want no part in Netanyahu's genocidal regime," she added, referring to fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Congress cannot continue to bankroll Israel's campaign of terror. Voting NO."
However, the House Rules Committee blocked debate on the proposal, which remains in the legislation.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," Khanna said.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, also remains in the legislation. The measure would “expand and enhance intelligence sharing” with Israel, and limit restrictions on such cooperation.
As controversial as 219 is, the primary driver of Democratic opposition to the NDAA was Republican leadership's use of a procedural rule to automatically merge the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act into the military spending package. The legislation—which has been strongly pushed by President Donald Trump—mandates proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Democrats heavily opposed attaching a controversial voting measure to a must-pass national security bill.
An amendment that would have made Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the US military permanent was narrowly defeated as Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Mike Lawler (NY), along with GOP Delegates Kimberlyn Kay King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands and James Moylan of Guam, broke ranks with their party and voted against it.
The proposed NDAA now goes to the Senate, where upper chamber lawmakers will consider their own version of the legislation.
"Americans are saying loudly and clearly: No more US military support for the extremist Netanyahu government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after the House vote. "That is why Congress must vote NO on the defense spending bill, which brings the US and Israeli militaries even closer together."
This article has been updated with the correct vote breakdowns.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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