

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


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Living in not just the bleakest but dumbest timeline, we must now witness the "off the charts clownfuckery" that is the spectacle of quivering, grown-ass Trump lackeys faithfully, fearfully shuffling around the halls of power in his fave "old-man-from-Queens" shoes - most ill-sized - foisted on them in some weird submission ritual by a sociopath with daddy issues. What he evidently doesn't know: A. They're made in China, B. Their company is suing him for his illegal tariffs. Up next: Kim Jong Un haircuts for all.
The latest manifestation of Trump's petty megalomania came to light when astute observers noticed that first Lil Marco Rubio, then other White House minions were sporting the same often-too-large shoes, which all turned out to be the $145, black oxford Florsheims regularly worn and touted by Trump. In a cringe origin story recounted by cringe JD Vance, the Favorite Florsheims Saga began at a December meeting in the Oval Bordello when Trump, always laser-focused, began staring at people’s feet and abruptly declared, "You guys have shitty shoes." He asked their shoe sizes. He (likely) ignored/forgot them. The shoes started arriving. He mercilessly badgered them: "Did you get the shoes?" And the dutiful flunkies, having already "left their manhood pickled in a golden jar on Trump’s desk," took on the latest indignity of clomping around in their sadist dad's shoes.
Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Duffy, Lutnick, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity. "All the boys have them,” said a female White House official. "It's hysterical, because everybody’s afraid not to wear them." Beware Trump bearing gifts: Armchair analysts took the shoe pageantry and ran with it. It's an ugly game of subjugation, an abuser's way of exhibiting dominance like the belligerent handshake, belittling nicknames, savage put-downs if any inferior dares to question or stray. It's a piece of "exquisite and complex satire" about the juvenile male anxiety over penis size. It's a humiliation ritual by a small, hollow, clueless, malignant narcissist with "a black hole of insecurity for a dog shit soul" whose only vestige of identity is a vulgar, outlandish brand - fake hair, fake tan, golf cap, red tie, beloved outdated "mall shoes" - he flaunts before his cowering vassals.
Historically, it's also a classic move by totalitarian leaders intent on establishing political and psychological fealty. See Mao jackets, Heil Hitlers, Stalin humiliating the clumsy Khrushchev by making him dance at his parties, Trump's Cabinet meetings become groveling, ring-and-ass-kissing circle jerks. Shoes can be a potent symbol in a performance: Khrushchev, in power, banging his shoe at the UN to punctuate his threat, "We will bury you"; an Iraqi protester hurling one, then two, in Arab culture "ritually unclean" shoes at Bush - who deftly dodged - at a Baghdad presser to show ultimate contempt; clowns of any variety, circus to MAGA, rendered most foolish in flapping massive flotsam. Imagine preening Pete Hegseth, who just banned un-hot photos of himself, with his tight suits and he-man Nazi tattoos, squeezed into or swimming in sloppy clunkers.
Adding insult to injury for these lame heroes of the manosphere, Florsheims are deeply uncool, "a brand you last saw when you were cleaning out your dead grandpa’s room and they were under his bed." Like most things, they're also the brainchild of immigrants, launched in Chicago in 1892 by German immigrant Sigmund Florsheim and his eldest son Milton. At its peak through two World Wars, a $5 pair of "genuine Florsheims" reportedly sold every 4 seconds; a timely gag in the great Chinatown, set in 1937, has Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes wading through diverted muddy water and scowling, "Goddamn Florsheims!" Its website boasts of "a reputation for being at the forefront of the newest trends while staying true to a legacy (of) quality craftsmanship"; in truth, they're now mostly found in downscale shopping malls and discount stores, struggling to escape a rep as relics of the past.
Today, Florsheim's belongs to parent company Weyco Group Inc. Unsurprisingly - so much again for the Klan-redolent "America First" mantra - they're made overseas in India, China, Cambodia, Dominican Republic. They seem to have a reasonably modern (sorry, "woke") worldview, with Black models and a Sustainability In Action program. And they're suing Trump - atypically, not just multiple federal agencies, but Trump himself - seeking refunds plus interest for the "unprecedented power grab" of his unlawful, unilaterally levied tariffs "without notice, public comment or Congressional authorization." SCOTUS already struck them down last month, citing the possible "mess" of upcoming "refunds of billions of dollars"; on March 4, a U.S. Trade Court judge basically said have at it when he ordered the regime to start paying those ill-begotten billions.
For now, the case is stayed. But many other companies are demanding their money back, and so is a coalition of two dozen states. As the pitchforks come out, online wags stay busy devising shoe puns: toeing the line, holding your tongue, comments laced with wit, heels with no soles, an ad for Sieg Heels: "Nobody puts the step in goosestep like Sieg Heels!” Meanwhile, our Führer's debased lickspittles stumble across the world stage, tripping on their own moral cowardice en route to the apocalypse. They need to remember Solzhenitsyn’s elemental advice in Gulag Archipelago: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding." Or, God forbid, flapping their fucking, war-mongering, world-razing clown shoes.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
It's been two weeks since Big Tech companies gathered at the White House to sign a nonbinding pledge saying they will not pass on higher utility costs to consumers as the rapid build-out of energy-intensive artificial intelligence data centers sends electricity bills skyrocketing—but polling out Wednesday showed a majority of Americans reject President Donald Trump's plan to leave corporations responsible for tackling the affordability crisis.
Those same companies, said most respondents to a survey by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, are responsible for higher costs that have hit households across the country, and can't be trusted to ensure life is more affordable for families.
Instead, said 61% of respondents, "cracking down on price gouging" from both utility and energy companies would be the most effective way to lower the cost of electricity. In comparison, just 35% said building more energy infrastructure to meet demands was the answer to high costs.
While Trump has been forced in recent weeks to acknowledge that "energy demands from AI data centers could unfairly drive up" people's energy costs, as he admitted in his State of the Union address while announcing AI companies would sign his "ratepayer protection pledge," the president has largely deflected blame regarding the affordability crisis—or denied its existence altogether.
Trump claimed at a rally in Kentucky last week that "the economy is roaring back," even as his $1 billion-per-day, unprovoked war on Iran inflamed tensions across the Middle East and drove up oil prices.
Groundwork said in its analysis of the poll that following Trump's announcement of the ratepayer protection pledge, "Americans reject this reliance on corporations to do the right thing."
Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy for Groundwork Collaborative, said that "utility prices are up and consumers know the truth: These price increases are being driven by corporate greed and unchecked AI data center growth."
Trump has pushed to accelerate the construction of new data centers by fast-tracking the permitting process.
Two-thirds of those surveyed said their monthly electricity payments have gone up in the past year, with nearly a quarter of respondents saying they had increased by "a lot." More than 40% of people said they are now paying between $101-$200 per month for electricity.
As Common Dreams reported last November, Trump's demand for AI companies to build massive, energy-sucking data centers in communities across the US has been linked to rising costs of consumers, with the average overdue balance on utility bills surging by 32% in the last three years and states with high concentrations of AI data centers seeing electricity prices skyrocket by as much as 16% from 2024-25.
Sixty percent of respondents told Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative that the energy demand of large commercial users like AI data centers is to blame for higher consumer prices, and the same percentage of people also blamed high compensation for utility company executives. Sixty-three percent of those polled said high profits for utility companies and their investors were to blame.
Joint Economic Committee Democrats revealed Tuesday that the average annual US electric bill increased by $110 last year.
A 2022 analysis by Accountable.US found that the nine largest US energy utility companies raked in nearly $14 billion in combined profits in the first three quarters of that year and handed out $11 billion to shareholders while tens of millions of households struggled with rising utility bills.
Nearly 60% of the 1,149 people polled by the two progressive think tanks also said the public sector must take a leadership role on providing energy, "because the public sector doesn't collect profits and can pass on savings to customers," and 60% said the public sector should be responsible for upgrading and modernizing the electric grid because it is a "public resource that should serve all Americans equally, not generate profits for shareholders."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy for Groundwork and a former Biden administration official, said the poll revealed that "the people believe in public power."
The groups also polled respondents on their opinions of "energy superusers," including cryptocurrency companies, AI data centers, and AI firms.
Crypto companies were the least popular, with 54% disapproving compared to 26% who approved. Voters disapproved of AI data centers by a 16-point margin and AI companies in general by an 8-point margin.
Nearly two-thirds said they believe new AI data centers would raise their energy costs, and voters across the political spectrum opposed new data centers in their communities.
Grassroots efforts have taken off in states including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Jersey as community members have rejected the construction of data centers on the grounds that they would consume massive amounts of water as well as electricity, threaten jobs, and take up space that could otherwise be used for affordable housing and small businesses.
"Voters feel ripped off by the corporations who hold their utilities hostage and are calling on lawmakers to put an end to the profiteering racket," said Pancotti. "It’s time for regulators and policymakers to answer the call to protect working families from predatory utility corporations and Big Tech.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee failed on Tuesday to secure wins in the two Illinois US House primaries it invested the most money in, the latest electoral flop for the pro-Israel lobbying organization whose brand has become increasingly noxious to Democratic voters amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In Illinois' 7th and 9th Congressional Districts, AIPAC spent millions backing Chicago treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second, and Democratic State Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third. In the latter race, AIPAC pivoted from initially attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss—who ultimately won—to concentrate on defeating Justice Democrats-backed Kat Abughazaleh.
AIPAC, which faced backlash for trying to conceal its spending in the Illinois contests using shell organizations, tried to spin the 9th Congressional District results as a win, despite spending more against Biss than against Abughazaleh.
"Though Kat narrowly lost this race, we are proud to have backed this campaign that helped ensure the people of IL-09 would not be represented by another AIPAC shill," Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement. "This outcome is a massive loss for AIPAC as they lose more and more influence within the Democratic Party. No amount of shell PACs or covert funding can hide their toxicity from Democratic voters, their monopoly over this party’s agenda is coming to an end.”
Two AIPAC-backed candidates did prevail Tuesday: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd Congressional District and former Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th Congressional District.
AIPAC's mixed results came amid broad alarm over outside spending that flooded Tuesday's midterm primary elections in Illinois, driven by pro-Israel, crypto, and AI special interest groups. Overall, more than $92 million was spent on campaign ads in Tuesday's contests in Illinois, a state record.
"I think we can safely say that almost $100 million spent in a handful of primaries is a full-spectrum disaster for democracy," wrote David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which called the torrent of spending "a corruption of democracy that is relatively unprecedented in modern elections."
The National Journal reported Tuesday that when the national midterm cycle is over, "the price tag for the Illinois primary will be an important footnote in what’s projected to be the most expensive midterm election ever."
"The nonpartisan research firm AdImpact estimates that more than $10.8 billion will be spent on ads alone this cycle," the Journal observed. "Even as the competitive map gets smaller, the price tag keeps increasing as more outside deep-pocketed groups invest more in primaries."
Super PACs, entities that can spend unlimited sums boosting their preferred candidates, pumped roughly $31 million into Tuesday's US House primaries in Illinois. AIPAC-linked organizations accounted for around $22 million of the total.
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote ahead of Tuesday's races.
Unionized workers with CBS News' streaming channel began a bicoastal one-day walkout Tuesday morning after unsuccessful negotiations for a "fair and just" contract under Bari Weiss, who has faced intense criticism on a range of topics since taking over as editor-in-chief.
CBS News is part of the media behemoth Paramount Skydance, which was formed in a controversial merger last August. Two months later, the company acquired Weiss' The Free Press, and CEO David Ellison appointed her to also lead all of CBS News, despite her lack of television experience.
The latest contract for the streaming channel, CBS News 24/7, expired last week, after which the workers delivered a strike pledge. Tuesday's 24-hour walkout—with rallies at CBS News Broadcast Center in New York City and at KPIX-TV CBS News Bay Area in San Francisco, California—kicked off at 6:00 am Eastern time.
"CBS News 24/7 journalists are walking off the job on both coasts today because management refuses to agree to a new contract with essential work protections and fair wages," the bargaining committee and contract action team said in a statement from Writers Guild of America East (WGAE).
"Despite multiple days of good-faith negotiations and a strike pledge signed by 95% of our members to emphasize the seriousness of our demands, management continues to offer us worse terms than in our last contracts," the team said. "We chose this field to cover the news, but we believe this work stoppage is necessary to achieve a fair contract. We eagerly await an acceptable contract offer from Paramount—which just shelled out tens of billions of dollars to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery."
Deadline explained that "the newsroom has undergone rounds of layoffs and buyouts, and more are expected. There also are fears of further downsizing when Paramount completes its deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, given that will leave the company with two global news outlets, CBS News and CNN."
Beth Godvik, WGAE vice president of broadcast/cable/streaming news, called out Paramount for striking a $110 billion deal with Warner Bros. Discovery while it "still hasn't guaranteed fair wages and basic job protections for the workers who make their streaming news operation run."
"Our members are walking out today to show management they stand united in their demand for a fair contract—and the WGAE is with them every step of the way," said Godvik.
As The Wrap noted:
The battle puts Weiss, an opinion journalist who had no TV news experience before she became CBS News' editor-in-chief last October, in the position of negotiating with a union under her purview for the first time. The union dispute comes as the network has already been rocked by star departures and scrutiny over its coverage.
The Free Press, the anti-woke outlet Weiss cofounded and still leads, is not unionized, while CBS News has four main bargaining units, including the Writers Guild of America-backed CBS News 24/7, which launched in 2014 and rebroadcasts CBS News shows like "60 Minutes" and "CBS Mornings" along with original shows like "The Takeout with Major Garrett."
A CBS News spokesperson told The Guardian that "we continue to negotiate in good faith and hope to reach a fair resolution quickly."
Meanwhile, multiple members of Congress expressed support for the work stoppage on social media.
"If Paramount can shell out billions of dollars to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, then they can pay their unionized CBS staff a fair wage," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "I stand with the CBS staff who walked out today as they fight these corporate giants for essential protections and fair contracts."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) declared that "American workers deserve fair pay and basic protections—full stop. I stand with the 60 CBS News 24/7 journalists walking off the job today in New York and San Francisco. Paramount is finalizing a $110 BILLION deal but can't give its own workers a fair contract?"
As US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be requesting $200 billion to wage his war of choice on Iran, a Thursday poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the war is benefiting Israel more than the United States.
The polling, conducted by Data for Progress for the groups Demand Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, shows that 56% of likely US voters across the ideological spectrum believe that launching a war against Iran generally benefits Israel more than the United States. Just 29% said it benefits the US more, while 15% said they didn't know.
"The American public does not want another war in the Middle East," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian in a statement. "People see billions of taxpayer dollars being poured into a war while prices at home keep rising, and the risks of escalation continue to grow."
"US service members are being killed and injured, and civilian harm is mounting, including strikes that have hit an Iranian school and killed scores of children," Kharrazian continued, pointing to the apparent US attack on a girls' school in Minab. "There is no justification for this open-ended war of choice."

Those surveyed were divided over whether the Israeli government has too much or too little influence over US foreign policy, and whether the United States is providing too much or too little support to Israel. However, a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they disapprove of recent military strikes against Iran, which Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began on February 28.
That share dropped only slightly, to 51%, when people were asked their opinion of the strikes once informed that "Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the US had to launch the war against Iran now because Israel was going to attack Iran anyway, which would cause Iran to respond by attacking US forces in the region."

Shortly after Rubio made those remarks to reporters on Capitol Hill, he and the White House attempted to walk them back. Trump himself publicly pushed back against the suggestion that Israeli officials convinced him to launch a new war in the Middle East with no end in sight, even claiming that "I might have forced their hand."
The new polling also suggests that continuing the war could have an impact at the ballot box in November, when Trump's Republican Party will try to retain its narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. The survey shows respondents are less likely to vote for pro-war candidates or those prioritizing support for Israel.

According to Kharrazian: "The main issue before us now isn't whether the administration has explained its strategy clearly enough. Calls for more hearings or a clearer 'plan' miss the bigger picture; the war must end, full stop."
"The strategy we can all plainly see is bombing Iran into submission despite little indication that such a goal is achievable, while destroying infrastructure and killing more civilians across the country on an indefinite timeline," he said. "Members of Congress should listen to the public, clearly demand an end to this war now, assert their constitutional authority, and ensure not one penny more is spent on this disaster."
In early March, a short list of Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the US Senate and House of Representatives to reject war powers resolutions intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran. The upper chamber blocked another measure Wednesday evening.
Lawmakers have done so despite polling that has repeatedly made clear the US public is not thrilled with the war on Iran, whatever ultimately motivated it. Another Data for Progress survey published Thursday shows that 68% of Americans oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran. Additionally, 52% of those surveyed agreed that “going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members."
The war has already killed 13 US service members plus thousands of people across the Middle East, mostly in Iran and Lebanon—the latter of which Israel has returned to bombing, allegedly targeting Hezbollah, despite a November 2024 ceasefire related to the genocidal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who previously tried to cut off some US weapons to Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, on Thursday introduced joint resolutions of disapproval for arms sales to Netanyahu's government following its recent escalation of attacks against Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine.
Objections to US contributions to bloodshed in the region have been met with hostility from the Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued Thursday that "the world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump: 'Thank you.'"
Meanwhile, even a significant majority of Americans who voted for Trump in 2024—79%—want a swift end to the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to a Wednesday poll commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative.
"The American people have paid tens of billions to fund Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and now they are paying tens of billions more for a war that Netanyahu has lobbied for going back decades. The blank checks for Israel were a significant reason why Democrats lost the election in 2024, and Republicans are on the path to suffer the same fate," said Margaret DeReus, executive director of IMEU Policy Project.
"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people," DeReus added, "and it is time for a new chapter where our nation's leaders hold Israel accountable for its genocidal expansionism and endless aggression."
"The US has lost control of this war," said foreign policy expert Trita Parsi.
As fears mount that he may soon launch a ground invasion of Iran, President Donald Trump is sending thousands more Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, three US officials said that an expeditionary unit of about 2,500 Marines, among roughly 4,000 total service members, departed from San Diego aboard three ships on Wednesday—the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and two amphibious transport dock ships, the USS Portland and the USS Comstock.
They will join around 50,000 US troops already in the Middle East, including another unit of around 2,500 Marines who were reported to be headed to the region last week, just before Trump launched an assault that struck military installations on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports.
Officials said it was not known for what purpose the additional troops were being deployed.
Trump was coy this week when asked by reporters if he planned to send ground troops into Iran.
“No, I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
He previously emphasized that he would not be afraid to put "boots on the ground" in Iran if he deems it necessary.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground—like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” the president told The New York Post at the beginning of March.
With US gas prices nearing $4 per gallon and expected to climb further due to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reported on Friday that Trump is weighing plans to have US troops occupy Kharg Island, through which about 90% of Iran's oil exports move, in a bid to pressure Tehran into reopening the critical waterway.
Foreign policy experts have warned that a full-scale occupation of Kharg Island would be likely to fail and put more troops in harm's way while further embroiling the US in a quagmire.
"Even a blockade of Kharg Island would not force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz," said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. "For Tehran, control over the Strait is not just economic leverage—it is a core component of regime survival and deterrence."
"Reopening the Strait would likely require one of two extreme options: either regime change, or a large-scale military campaign to seize and secure the waterway. Such an operation would take months and still wouldn’t prevent Iran from disrupting traffic through asymmetric means."
Dominic Waghorn, the international affairs editor of Sky News, explained that "opening up a waterway that can be blocked again by cheap, easily deployable drones will be hugely challenging" and will likely only demonstrate to Tehran that the United States is "desperate."
The idea of sending ground troops into Iran is also deathly unpopular with the American public. In a Data For Progress poll published Thursday, 68% of voters surveyed said they would oppose putting boots on the ground, compared to just 26% who'd support it.
Even Republicans, who've generally backed Trump's military interventions to the hilt even though the president campaigned on "no new wars," are split on the idea, with 48% saying they'd oppose it and 48% in support.
Nevertheless, one official told Axios that in addition to the Marine units already heading to the Middle East, the Pentagon was considering sending even more troops soon.
"He wants Hormuz open," the official said, referring to Trump. "If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that's going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that's going to happen. But that decision hasn't been made."
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted earlier this week that the Strait of Hormuz would never have become an issue in the first place were it not for Trump's decision to launch a "war of choice" against Iran.
"I don't think President Trump, in his own words frankly, understood what he was getting into," Sadjadpour told NPR. "What began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity. I don't think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory."
The war is costing American taxpayers $1-2 billion per day, according to lawmakers familiar with the Pentagon budget who spoke with The Intercept earlier this week, which estimated that it could cost trillions in the decades to come if prolonged.
"The US has lost control of this war," said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He said that even if Trump pulled out now and declared victory, Iran would be determined to inflict maximum costs.
"Iran has leverage for the first time in years and will seek to trade it in," he said. "It has publicly demanded a closing of US bases, reparations, and sanctions relief in order to stop shooting at Israel and open the straits."
If the president's base of supporters begins to sour on the war, Parsi said, "it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."
"Despite its move to leave the ICC, Hungary is still a member country and is still obligated to arrest and surrender individuals wanted by the court," one campaigner stressed.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced plans to ditch the International Criminal Court nearly a year ago, during a visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the subject of an ICC arrest warrant. With Netanyahu set to return to Hungary on Saturday, and the country's exit from the tribunal not final for a few more months, Orbán faces fresh pressure to arrest Netanyahu.
"Despite its move to leave the ICC, Hungary is still a member country and is still obligated to arrest and surrender individuals wanted by the court," Alice Autin, international justice researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in a Friday statement.
"By flouting this obligation, for the second time in less than a year," Autin argued, "Hungary would further entrench impunity for serious crimes in Palestine and once again betray victims who have been denied justice for far too long."
HRW: Hungarian authorities should arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters Hungarian territory. He is expected to travel to Hungary on March 21 to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, shortly before national electionswww.hrw.org/news/2026/03...
[image or embed]
— Bassam Khawaja (@khawaja.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 7:33 AM
In November 2024, the ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel. Despite a ceasefire deal reached over five months ago, the Israeli assault on the Palestinian territory continues. There are at least 72,253 Palestinians confirmed dead, and 171,912 more have been injured, though global experts warn the true death toll is likely far higher.
After Netanyahu visited Hungary last April without being arrested, the Hungarian government formally notified United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres that it would withdraw from the Hague-based court in exactly one year, on June 2, 2026.
Soon after that notification, ICC judges found that "Hungary failed to comply with its international obligations" under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the tribunal, "by not executing the court's request to provisionally arrest Mr. Netanyahu while he was present on Hungarian territory," and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties.
Highlighting that the assembly, the court's oversight and legislative body, "noted the judicial finding but failed to take more decisive action" during its annual session in December, HRW called on ICC state parties to "strengthen their responses to noncooperation."
The group specifically pressured members of the European Union, which have declined to "take sufficient measures to prevent Hungary's undermining of the ICC and Orbán’s broader attack on the rule of law," beyond the European Parliament's 2018 decision to initiate a procedure under Article 7 of the EU treaty to assess the bloc member.
According to HRW:
The European Commission indicated in May 2025 that it was "in the process of analyzing Hungary's announced withdrawal from the ICC in the light of the EU's acquis," that is, the body of EU law which includes respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. But there is no indication that the commission's assessment has progressed.
EU leadership and member states, along with other ICC member countries, should press Hungary to reverse its withdrawal from the court, publicly remind Hungary of its ongoing obligations as an ICC member, and urge Hungarian authorities to cooperate with the court by arresting Netanyahu. If the visit takes place, they should strongly condemn Hungary's continued failure to cooperate with the court and unambiguously reaffirm their own commitment to execute all pending ICC warrants, regardless of whom they target.
The European Commission and EU member states should also consider Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC as a further risk of serious breach of fundamental EU values, and consider including the withdrawal in the scope of the current procedure under Article 7. They should also assess what other measures and action should be taken. This could include initiating a procedure that could lead to a finding that Hungary has infringed EU law.
"Orbán's government is about to roll out the red carpet again for Netanyahu, when it is obligated to arrest him," said Autin. "Silence and persistent inaction from the EU risks sending a dangerous message of acquiescence as the Israeli government continues to be responsible for atrocities."
Netanyahu notably skipped the signing of the charter for US President Donald Trump's so-called "Board of Peace" for Gaza in Davos, Switzerland, in January, after the Swiss government affirmed its commitment to arresting him.
The Israeli prime minister is set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary on Saturday, though there is a chance he will not appear in person due to security concerns related to his and Trump's war on Iran, which they launched nearly three weeks ago.
Since the US-Israeli campaign began on February 28, Israel has also ramped up its bombing of alleged Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and again cut off the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
There have also been rumors that Trump—who has previously sent exclusive video messages to CPAC Hungary—may make an appearance, despite the security concerns. The US president has responded to the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant by sanctioning ICC judges.