

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.
In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”
The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana's redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was ”an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“
In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.
The potential death knoll for a vital law that's curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: "This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box." One "pernicious" result, writes Rick Hasen: To "bleach the halls" of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life's work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them "at odds with democracy itself."
In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders." The law they “eviscerate", she wrote, "is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”
Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of "the rights that cost our people so much," that has "decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism." "Some of us," John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, "gave a little blood for (that) right."

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she'd grown up in because, "I was sick and tired of being sick and tired." The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: "If I'd had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember."
On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for "driving a bus the wrong color." Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she'd gone to vote; he told her to leave that night "because we are not ready for that in Mississippi." "I didn’t try to register for you," she said.. "I tried to register for myself." Then she left: "They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people." For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC's oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.
Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, "How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.
In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi's all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she'd helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, "Is this America?"
- YouTube www.youtube.com
During Hamer's testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. "Hamer had pulled back the curtain," read one account. "The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens." Ultimately, Hamer's inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson's finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”
Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the '68 and '72 DNC, at 1969's Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: "We're On Our Way," "Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” "The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together," ""What Have We To Hail," "America Is A Sick Place," "To Make Democracy A Reality," and, in 1976, "We Haven't Arrived Yet."
Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven't. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, "from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal." Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners "the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer." Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine." Her gravestone reads, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired." May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.
“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer
"To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives." - Derek Penwell
Representatives of more than 50 countries on Friday kicked off the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Colombia, a hopeful summit that comes amid a worsening global climate crisis and fossil fuel-producing nations' efforts to block a clean energy transition.
Organizers of the conference—which is taking place in the Caribbean city of Santa Marta and is co-hosted by the Netherlands—said participants aim to "initiate a concrete process through which a coalition of committed countries, subnational governments, and relevant stakeholders can identify and advance enabling pathways to implement a progressive transition away from fossil fuels, creating sustainable societies and economies."
"This process will be informed by the experience and perspectives of national and subnational governments, academia, Indigenous peoples, peoples of African descent, peasants, civil society, workers, the private sector, and other key actors at different stages of the transition," the organizers added.
The conference comes amid widespread disappointment and frustration over what climate defenders called a "shamefully weak" draft text—called the Multirão Decision—produced at last November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Brazil. The final document removed all mentions of fossil fuels amid pressure from oil and gas-producing nations like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and the presence of a record number of industry lobbyists.
“When multilateral processes move slowly, concrete alliances of the willing can take us a long way," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said this week at the 17th Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Hesse state, where high-level representatives from around 40 countries discussed "concrete steps towards overcoming the climate crisis."
I've worked on #climate and fossil fuels for almost 30 years and the Santa Marta Conference is definitely one of the most hopeful things I've seen. Finally some governments are exploring solutions that meet the scale of the crisis. Good explainer 🧵👇
[image or embed]
— Patrick Reinsborough ❌👑 (@giantwhispers.bsky.social) April 24, 2026 at 7:57 AM
The Santa Marta conference, which will run through April 29, will focus on three main areas:
Major fossil fuel producers including Angola, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, and the United Kingdom are among the 54 nations represented in Santa Marta.
Notably absent from the conference are some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters, including the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan. Their absence is fine with Colombian Environmental Minister Irene Vélez Torres, who told The Guardian that “this is not the space for them."
"We are not going to have boycotters or climate denialists at the table,” Vélez said.
Also missing by design are the legions of lobbyists who increasingly swarm COP conferences.
Word on the street is NO fossil fuel lobbyists at the Santa Marta, Colombia 'Transition Away' conference. But it does have some of the best climate scientists in the world for an advisory panel.
[image or embed]
— Bob Berwyn (@bberwyn.bsky.social) April 24, 2026 at 11:15 AM
Former Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who heads the World Wildlife Fund's global climate division, said in a statement that "changing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels isn’t a slow problem with a slow solution: We need a rapid, global shift to renewable power, smarter grids, and efficiency, so emissions fall fast and stay down."
"And we need a ‘coalition of the willing’ to show us the way," he added. "Santa Marta is an inflection point and an opportunity that we should not miss.”
The absence of the United States surprised no one, given the Trump administration and Republicans' promotion of oil, gas, and coal. Big Oil invested $445 million during the 2024 election cycle in efforts to elect Trump and other Republicans and promote fossil fuel-friendly policies.
Trump, who ran on a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy, has signed a series of executive orders aimed at boosting fossil fuel production, including by declaring a fake “energy emergency” in a push to fast-track permit approvals. He also tapped former fossil fuel executives to head the Department of Energy and Interior Department, which have pursued a policy of opening up more public lands and waters for fossil fuel development.
At the same time, the Trump administration dropped out of the Paris climate agreement for the second time and moved to roll back the modest climate progress achieved under former President Joe Biden.
Melinda Lewis—who directs the Global Trade Watch program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen—is attending the Santa Marta conference, where she is working to dismantle the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. The enforced mechanism empowers multinational corporations to sue governments before panels of corporate attorneys and has been denounced by opponents—especially those in the Global South—as a novel form of colonialism.
"While it is tragic that the United States government is failing to meet this critical moment for climate action, we are encouraged that the rest of the world has recognized that it’s high time to take bold action to remove the arcane ISDS extra-legal instrument buried in trade and investment treaties that has been used as a cudgel by fossil fuel and extractive industries to stymie government actions that might reduce their profits," Lewis said on Friday.
As Canadian researcher Joseph Bouchard recently wrote in a Common Dreams opinion piece, "Colombia is especially exposed" to ISDS harm, as "the country has 129 oil and gas projects covered by ISDS provisions, leaving it vulnerable to a wave of potential claims as it pursues its energy transition."
Lewis noted that Colombia's government, led by leftist President Gustavo Petro, "recently announced its intention to renounce its treaties that include ISDS as part of the full package of needed action to usher in a clean energy transition."
Indigenous leaders said more must be done to ensure a just transition.
“We are very concerned. We talk about a just transition, but in practice it is not true,” Oswaldo Muca, General Coordinator of the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon, told Inter Press Service. “Mining continues. Extraction continues. Deforestation continues. The territories and Indigenous peoples continue suffering this problem, and it is becoming more serious every day."
Muca added that benefits from resource extraction "do not reach Indigenous territories, but they destroy the territory and leave the damage."
On Friday, more than 250 legal experts from around the world asserted that "phasing out fossil fuels is not a political choice—it is a legal obligation."
The jurists noted in an open letter that "the International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously confirmed that every state must use all means at its disposal to prevent significant harm to the climate system, including by avoiding the principal activities driving it: fossil fuel production and use."
The letter's signers include former Irish President Mary Robinson and Julian Aguon, an Indigenous human rights lawyer from Guam who played a key role in winning the ICJ climate case.
"The phaseout of fossil fuels is not just scientifically necessary to prevent catastrophic and irreversible harm to the climate system, all peoples, and ecosystems; it is legally required," they wrote. "It is also socially, economically, and environmentally beneficial for present and future generations."
Ultimately, countries participating in the Santa Marta conference will draw their own individual roadmaps with the help of scientists and other experts.
“If we think about it," said Vélez, "the conference is that turning point where, collectively, we decide to be on the right side of history."
The Trump administration is pushing forward with a new rule that could strip as many as 400,000 low-income adults with disabilities of hundreds of dollars per month.
ProPublica reported on Tuesday that the Trump administration was planning a major rule change to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides basic income to adults with severe disabilities like Down syndrome and autism and some indigent elderly people who may struggle to support themselves.
The program, which serves around 7.5 million Americans, typically provides payments of around $600-700 per month—enough to help pay for basic needs like food and shelter, but not enough to live on independently, especially for those already struggling due to disabilities. As a result, many SSI recipients still reside with family members.
Under the rule change, ProPublica reported that the administration would "penalize" these individuals "simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails, and a federal regulatory listing."
According to the report:
The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third... or ending their support altogether.
Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained the proposed rule change in a policy briefing in August:
Currently, very low-income disabled or older people who receive SSI can have their benefits reduced by up to one-third (about $300 a month) if they receive “in-kind support and maintenance,” including a place to stay. Similarly, SSI recipients can have their benefits reduced based on the income of their parents (if they are under 18) or spouse, under the assumption that they will contribute to an SSI beneficiary’s living expenses. However, these reductions don’t apply to beneficiaries who live in a household that receives “public assistance,” including food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That’s because households financially precarious enough to qualify for those benefits can’t afford to financially support SSI recipients...
SSI’s public assistance household rule has been updated to reflect the ways struggling families make ends meet—but the Trump administration proposal would return the program to the outdated criteria first established in 1980... This change would ignore the reality that families who receive SNAP have very low incomes—the typical multi-person SNAP household with at least one member who receives SSI has an annual income of around $17,000, well below the poverty line.
According to ProPublica, one woman with Down syndrome in Philadelphia, 22-year-old Shy’tyra Burton, who has struggled to find a job due to her intellectual disability, is expected to see her $994 monthly benefit cut by about $330 a month because she has continued to live with her father, Rondell, a sanitation worker.
He makes about $2,000 a month, or $24,000 annually—well below the federal poverty line for a single parent with multiple children. Even with the SSI payment, which allows Shy’tyra to pay for her own internet and meals, Rondell said that he's "still barely managing."
Using actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which administers the program, ProPublica determined that as many as 400,000 disabled people and indigent elderly people could lose some or all of their benefits.
"These are not people gaming the system," argued Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), whose state could see more than 57,000 people lose benefits as a result of the cuts.
"Fewer than one in three applicants is approved," he said. "The process takes years and requires medical and vocational evaluations.
"The administration calls this rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not," he continued. "This policy costs more, helps no one, and punishes families for taking care of their own."
The rule change is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it will be subject to editing before being sent back to the Social Security Administration, where it will face a period of public comment.
The OMB is administered by Director Russell Vought, one of the architects of the Heritage Foundation's far-right Project 2025 agenda. In addition to using last year's government shutdown to withhold SNAP benefits from around 42 million Americans and starve blue states of funding for federal programs, he has used the office to push for a full-fledged assault on benefits for the poor, disabled, and elderly, including those administered by the SSA.
Vought reportedly led the charge for the SSA to raise the age threshold for disabled adults receiving Social Security disability insurance from 50 to 60, or to remove age as a factor altogether when determining whether a disabled individual has the capability to work. According to the Urban Institute, the plan could have kicked 750,000 people off their disability payments and reduced payouts by $82 million over the next decade.
The administration ultimately backed off the proposal once it became clear that many of those hurt would be older coal miners and factory workers in red states, some of Trump's core demographics of support. But it is still reportedly soldiering ahead with its plan to cut SSI payments for those with disabilities.
Vought has justified these and other dramatic cuts as part of efforts to make the government more efficient. But ProPublica found that while cutting Burton’s benefit could save taxpayers about $11 per day, it could mean her father is unable to care for her, forcing her into a state facility that costs hundreds of dollars a day in public money.
"The Trump rule would have harmful consequences beyond the loss of benefits and eligibility, creating heartbreaking dilemmas for SSI recipients and their families," explained Romig and O'Connor. "It could discourage families from offering help to their loved ones, for fear of jeopardizing their meager benefits. It could force more people to turn to institutional care because they could no longer afford to live in the community."
Fred Wellman, a military veteran and Democratic candidate for the second congressional district in Missouri—a state where around 6,000 disabled and elderly people could potentially be affected by the proposed cuts—called the policy a “truly monstrous decision” especially in light of a recent Republican proposal for Congress to allocate $400 million for Trump’s White House ballroom project after a court ruled it could not be funded using donations.
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," Wellman said. "Over and over, this administration and the GOP choose cruelty over caring. It’s just sick."
Just a day after Democrats in the GOP-controlled US House of Representatives helped Republicans send a major spying bill to the Senate, despite warnings that it was dead on arrival there, both chambers on Thursday passed a 45-day extension to continue negotiations.
The Senate approved the stopgap bill for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—which allows the federal government to spy on electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States without a warrant—by a voice vote. The House signed off with a 261-11 vote, just hours before a previous short-term extension was set to expire.
President Donald Trump and his homeland security adviser, Stephen Miller, have been demanding a "clean" extension of the program, while critical lawmakers from both parties and over 100 civil society groups have called for privacy reforms to protect Americans whose data is swept up in federal surveillance efforts.
Hajar Hammado, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, one of the organizations leading reform calls, said in a Thursday statement that "intelligence agencies, the White House, and their allies in Congress have tried every trick in the book from fearmongering to misinformation, but they still can't get their warrantless FISA reauthorization across the finish line."
"The reason we keep ending up at this point is congressional leaders' refusal to allow votes on overwhelmingly popular, bipartisan reforms," she continued. "This 'my way or the highway' approach needs to stop."
According to Politico, US Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters on Thursday that he and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) discussed the short-term extension during a closed-door meeting the previous day.
"I think there's already a pretty substantial dialog going on" between key Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, Thune added. "We're interested in looking at some ways in which it can be reformed... So we're entertaining those ideas at the moment."
Hammado declared that "when Congress returns, Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune must allow votes on amendments for real privacy protections or we'll keep repeating this farce over and over again. Our bipartisan movement in defense of civil liberties is holding strong, and we won't accept anything less."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime defender of privacy rights who had threatened to block the extension, highlighted on social media Thursday that he "secured a commitment that the FISA court opinion revealing abuses of Americans' rights will be DECLASSIFIED before Congress votes on reauthorization."
"The more Americans know about these abuses," he said, "the more they'll demand real reforms."
An Israeli human rights group is petitioning for the country's Supreme Court to order the release of 14 doctors from Gaza who have been imprisoned for more than a year without charges.
Among them is Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, who has been detained without charges since December 2024 and this week had his detention extended by a district court, which Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) described as "unlawful."
On Thursday, PHRI said that Israel's Supreme Court must recognize "the special protections afforded to doctors and medical workers under international humanitarian law, as well as the urgent need for medical personnel from Gaza to carry out their duties and help rehabilitate the extensive damage inflicted on Gaza’s healthcare system."
They called on the court to revoke the detentions of Safiya and 13 other doctors, who include pediatricians, orthopedic specialists, and surgeons.
Nearly all of the hospitals in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed during more than two years of genocidal war by Israel, and more than 1,500 healthcare workers have been killed in what UN experts have described as a "medicide."
PHRI said that hundreds of medical workers have been targeted and arrested by the Israel Defense Forces without charge, "effectively paralyzing an entire healthcare system already made fragile by the ongoing destruction."
"Over the past two years, testimonies from detained medical workers have described dire conditions of incarceration, including starvation and abuse amounting to torture across Israeli detention facilities," the group said, noting that at least five of them had died in custody.
PHRI said it had submitted a request to Israel's Supreme Court to reconsider the detention orders, but upon receiving no response, it filed a petition.
"Despite protections under international humanitarian law, and an ongoing ceasefire, doctors from Gaza are still being held without any due process, subjected to severe conditions amounting to torture," the group said. "The continued detention of doctors who could provide urgently needed medical care—actively hinders the rehabilitation of the healthcare system and prevents any meaningful recovery."
Friday marks 60 days since President Donald Trump formally notified Congress of the US and Israel's illegal war on Iran—a key deadline under a relevant federal law. In a new notification obtained by Politico, the White House claimed the conflict has been "terminated," but lawmakers aren't buying that argument.
"That's bullshit," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the latest notification on social media. "This is an illegal war, and every day Republicans remain complicit and allow it to continue is another day lives are endangered, chaos erupts, and prices increase, all while Americans foot the bill."
Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has fought to stop Trump's assault on Iran since before it began, told Common Dreams that "Trump knows this war is deeply unpopular with his base. He's trying to say it's over, but the reality is that thousands of US troops are still in the region, and food and gas prices are still going up at home."
The Republican president and some of his key allies had previewed the White House position in various remarks on Thursday.
"Look, the country's doing really well, and that's despite a military operation—I don't call it a war," Trump, a well-documented liar, told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. "Iran is dying to make a deal."
Since Trump began bombing Iran on February 28, legal experts and US lawmakers have alleged violations of international law and the Constitution, which empowers only Congress to declare war. However, both chambers are narrowly controlled by Republicans, nearly all of whom have refused to support Democratic war powers resolutions intended to end the conflict, most recently in the Senate on Thursday.
Defenders of Trump's so-called "Operation Epic Fury" argue that he was allowed to strike Iran under the War Powers Act of 1973, which empowers the president to deploy military forces for up to 60 days as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. After those two months, he is required to end hostilities or seek permission from federal lawmakers to continue them.
"He seems set against doing so," Tess Bridgeman and Oona A. Hathaway wrote Friday for Just Security. "If he refuses, he will take a war that is already doubly illegal and turn it into a triply illegal war. He will also make it clear, if it was not already, that he regards the law as no constraint on his use of the US military's lethal power."
On Thursday, as the latest Senate resolution was blocked in a 47-50 vote, Trump allies joined the president in suggesting that, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told NBC News in the Capitol, "We are not at war."
"I don't think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing, or anything like that. Right now, we are trying to broker a peace," Johnson said. "I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of these very sensitive negotiations, so we'll have to see how that plays out."
The US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire on April 7, just hours after Trump's genocidal threat to wipe out the Middle Eastern country's "whole civilization." That truce has since been extended, but it and another deal for Israel's supposed targeting of Hezbollah in Lebanon are both "fragile, temporary, and in danger of collapse at any moment," as Amnesty International stressed in a Wednesday statement calling on the international community to push for sustainable peace in the region.
Throughout the ceasefire, Trump has maintained his naval blockade on Iran, which has responded to the war by closing the Strait of Hormuz to most ship traffic. Restrictions on the trade route have driven up fuel prices around the world, including across the United States, where new polling shows that over 60% of Americans say the president's war was a "mistake."
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cited the ceasefire on Thursday when questioned about how the administration plans to address the 60-day deadline by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—a leading voice for war powers resolutions on Iran and other military aggression by the administration—during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Hegseth said that "ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which, [in] our understanding, means the 60-day clock pauses, or stops, in a ceasefire."
Interjecting, Kaine responded that "I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's gonna pose a really important legal question for the administration. We have serious constitutional concerns and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns."
Before the notification to Congress on Friday, a senior Trump administration official had affirmed that what Hegseth laid out is the White House position, telling Reuters that the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since April 7 and, for War Powers Act purposes, "the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated."
Highlighting Trump's ongoing blockade of Iran, US Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) called Hegseth "flat wrong," and declared that the Pentagon chief "does not get to rewrite the law because following it is inconvenient."
Another California Democrat, Rep. Sara Jacobs, said on social media Thursday: "Trump's war on Iran was illegal from day one—Congress never authorized it. Tomorrow, the statutory 60-day clock runs out too. Republicans are out of excuses and should join Democrats and stop this war. Let's put the pressure on."
In a video released Friday, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) noted his role in the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal—which Trump ditched during his first term—and emphasized the president's "legal obligation to withdraw troops after 60 days, or come to Congress for authorization."
Democrats have vowed to keep introducing war powers resolutions. As one went down in the Senate on Thursday, Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) introduced another in the House, following in the footsteps of other Congressional Progressive Caucus members.
"Americans don't even know why we are in this war, and neither does Congress," Balint said in a statement. "This unauthorized war is yet another example of the Trump administration's brazen and illegal attempts to consolidate power. At a time when Americans have told us everything is too expensive, it is shameful that we are wasting upwards of a billion dollars a day on this."
"We need it to end, to bring our service members back to safety, and to get Congress and this administration to focus on lowering the cost of living here at home," she added. "Today, I introduced a war powers resolution which would direct the president to stop the use of US armed forces in Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war from Congress. It is essential to hold every member of Congress accountable for allowing this war to continue and put them on record for the American people to see."
Nick Penniman, founder and CEO of the political reform group Issue One, took aim at federal lawmakers on Friday, declaring that "the American people should be deeply concerned by Congress' failure today. Since the war in Iran started, our country has spent more than $25 billion bombing military and civilian targets in Iran. Fourteen Americans have been killed, and more than 200 have been wounded. More than 3,000 Iranians have died—half of them civilians, and many of them children. The stakes are profound, which is why Congress should be making such decisions, not just one man in the Oval Office."
"Yet, in defiance of the Constitution, too many in Congress bow to the President. In missing the 60-day deadline to assert constitutional authority, Congress has totally failed in its most fundamental role as the first branch of government," he continued. "The precedent set today is deeply harmful to American democracy. When the president acting alone becomes normalized, it becomes more difficult to have a government of, by, and for the people."
"The founders were very clear that Congress, not the executive, has the final say when it comes to war and peace," he concluded. "This can't go on. Congress must approve all future funding for the war with Iran. Moving forward, Congress has to reassert its power in deciding when and how our country enters war. In order to do that, Congress should update the 1973 War Powers Resolution to reassert constitutional checks and balances to protect future generations of Americans."
This article has been updated to include the White House's new notification to Congress claiming the Iran War has been "terminated" plus comment from Issue One, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Congressman Ro Khanna.
“It should not be controversial to have one’s ‘heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel’s war in Gaza,’” said Professor Derek R. Peterson.
The University of Michigan is facing criticism after it apologized and said it was launching a review into a professor's commencement speech in which he praised the school's pro-Palestine student movement for highlighting the “injustice and inhumanity” of Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
Since the early weeks of the war, which has so far resulted in the deaths of more than 72,000 Palestinians according to official estimates, Michigan's campus has been the site of continued acts of civil disobedience from student activists that have been met with harsh disciplinary action by the school and aggressive crackdowns by state police.
During a commencement address on Saturday, Professor Derek R. Peterson—a University of Michigan historian and the outgoing chair of the Faculty Senate—acknowledged these students as part of a speech that commemorated the school's long history of social activism, including the struggle led by suffragette Sarah Burger for the school to open its doors to women in the mid-1800s.
"The freedoms that we all enjoy were hard won. They weren't handed to us by a generous and far-seeing administration," Peterson said. "So the next time you sing 'Hail to the Victors,' our fight song, sing for Sarah Burger."
"Sing for the thousands of other students who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of social justice over the course of centuries," he said.
He encouraged students to “sing for Moritz Levy, the first Jewish professor at the University of Michigan,” who helped turn it into “a safe haven from the antisemitism of East Coast universities” and for “the students of the Black Action Movement, whose members demanded a curriculum that would reflect the experience and identity of black people in this country.”
Then he said to "sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists, who have over these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel's war in Gaza."
A cheer erupted from the crowd. But Peterson said the comments caused “a furor on social media” from supporters of Israel, who called it a “political rant,” a shoutout to “terrorist sympathizers,” and “grounds for termination.”
Sarah Hubbard, a Republican who is currently serving as a regent at the university, wrote on social media that while she was not in attendance, she found Peterson's remark "troubling and disappointing." She added that there should be "meaningful consequences" for his statements that should "set the tone" for the conduct of other faculty.
Leo Terrell, the chair of the Department of Justice’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which was created by President Donald Trump as part of an effort to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, said, “Shame on the University of Michigan,” and issued what appeared to be a threat for retaliation over social media: “We’ll see you soon. You can bet the house on it.”
Domenico Grasso, president of the University of Michigan, responded to the uproar on Saturday by issuing an apology for Peterson's remark.
He called the comments "hurtful and insensitive to many members of our community" and said, "We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment."
Grasso accused Peterson of having "deviated" from the remarks he'd shared before the ceremony, and said his statements "were inappropriate and do not represent our institutional position" or "the diversity of views across our entire faculty."
He added that Peterson's remarks "were expected to be congratulatory, not a platform for personal or political expression" and said the school would "review and refine" future commencement programming to prevent speech that does not "align with the purpose of the occasion." The university has removed Peterson's commencement video from its public channels.
The University of Michigan has had sitting members of Congress and other political leaders serve as commencement speakers for decades.
President Lyndon B. Johnson famously used the ceremony in 1964 to introduce Americans to his "Great Society" agenda, which he said would demand an "end to poverty and racial injustice." President George HW Bush used the forum to tout his foreign policy accomplishments and rail against "political correctness" on university campuses.
Just last year, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) served as commencement speaker and warned that public discourse was being “defined by fear” under the second Trump administration in part because of activists being punished for their political beliefs and speech.
In a statement to CBS News Detroit, Peterson responded to the backlash and the university's response.
"It should not be controversial to have one's 'heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel's war in Gaza', which is what I credited activists with doing," he said. "Having an open heart to other people's suffering is a fundamental human virtue. It is a quality that I hope we teach our students, whatever their political posture might be."
Peterson said he was "mystified" by the response to his speech. "I have—like many of us here in Michigan—been convicted by the evidence of human suffering in Gaza; and I credit my awareness of that to pro-Palestinian activists... On a day meant to honor students for their accomplishments, I thought it important that we would honor the student activists who have, over the course of time, pushed the institution toward justice."
"The idea that graduations should be apolitical is ridiculous," Peterson added. "Michigan is not a finishing school for polite young men and women. Our students are not wilting flowers. They have just finished their degrees at the foremost public university in the country. They can handle controversy."
Just as Peterson's comments sparked a backlash, the university's reaction to his speech has been met with familiar criticism that it is silencing political speech at the behest of Israel's supporters.
"The entire 'speak-no-criticism-of-Israel' industry is erupting in outrage and demanding retribution for a history professor’s speech at the UMich graduation," said Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who added that those seeking to discipline Peterson were effectively making a "demand for a complete Israel-exception to free speech."
Israel has been condemned for human rights violations in Gaza by United Nations experts and numerous nations around the world, while several human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli organization B'Tselem, among many others, have used the term "genocide" to describe its campaign of destruction and displacement in Gaza.
Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, noted Grasso's claim that Peterson's statements ran counter to the school's "institutional position."
He said sardonically that it was “pretty neat to see a University of Michigan president say the school is opposed to human rights.”
"As a physician he understands firsthand that our current healthcare system is broken, that healthcare is a human right, and that we must pass Medicare for All."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders over the weekend endorsed New Jersey surgeon Dr. Adam Hamawy for Congress, citing the Democratic candidate's long record of saving lives in humanitarian disasters from 9/11 to Israel's US-backed destruction of Gaza, as well as his support for Medicare for All and willingness to take on the billionaire class.
“Dr. Adam Hamawy has saved lives with great courage and honor—he did it as a 9/11 first responder, as a combat trauma surgeon in Iraq, as a volunteer in hospitals under bombardment in Gaza, and in emergency rooms in New Jersey," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media.
"As a physician he understands firsthand that our current healthcare system is broken, that healthcare is a human right, and that we must pass Medicare for All," the senator continued. "Dr. Hamawy is prepared to fight for real campaign finance reform to stop billionaires from buying elections, and will not waste billions of taxpayer dollars on endless and illegal wars."
"Status quo politics is not working," Sanders added. "We need bold leaders like Dr. Hamawy in Congress. I am proud to endorse him and look forward to working with him after he is elected.”
Hamawy said he was "excited" by Sanders' endorsement.
"I am running to fund healthcare, not bombs, to abolish ICE, and to unrig our economy," he said. "In Congress, I'll fight right alongside Bernie to defeat fascism and deliver for working people."
"As a doctor, I am proud to fight alongside him for Medicare for All," Hamawy added. "As a veteran, I am grateful for his advocacy for our community and his leadership in fighting against endless wars. I am deeply honored to have earned his support.“
Hamawy, the son of immigrants from Egypt, is running for New Jersey's 12th Congressional District seat, currently held by retiring Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman. He grew up in Old Bridge Township and is a graduate of Rutgers University and what is now Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.
The 46-year-old physician joined the United States Army Medical Corps and served during the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as a combat trauma surgeon. Hamawy—whose highest rank was lieutenant colonel—became nationally known after saving the life of then-Army helicopter pilot and current US Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) after her helicopter was shot down in Iraq in 2004. Duckworth later credited him with preventing her from becoming a triple amputee.
After leaving the Army, Hamawy volunteered in emergency and war zones including after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, during the Syrian Civil War, and the ongoing Gaza genocide—when he joined an international medical mission and performed roughly 120 surgeries, many on children wounded in Israeli attacks.
Hamawy and the other doctors on the team became trapped inside Gaza after Israel closed the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. Duckworth urged then-US President Joe Biden to secure the doctors' evacuation. According to reporting, Hamawy was one of three US doctors who refused to be evacuated from Gaza until non-American members of his medical team could also leave.
After returning stateside, Hamawy testified about conditions in Gaza, describing catastrophic shortages of medicine and other vital equipment and the high mortality rates among severely wounded civilians.
In addition to Sanders, Hamawy is endorsed by Duckworth, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and progressive groups including Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, Veterans for Responsible Leadership, Council on American-Islamic Relations Action, and Track AIPAC.
While some pro-Palestine congressional incumbents and candidates including Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian American from Illinois, have been defeated amid a torrent of funding from groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, others have won their races in recent elections, including Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Analilia Mejia (D-NJ), who was sworn into office last month.
"Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it's a failure," said Democratic Rep. Shontel Brown.
US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on Saturday openly celebrated millions of people losing their food assistance, which experts say is a direct result of the Republicans' 2025 budget law that slashed funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $186 billion over a decade.
In a social media post pointing to preliminary data from her department, Rollins boasted that there were now "4.3 million off SNAP and counting!"
"Under President Trump, Americans are getting back to work!" Rollins added. "Healthy employment numbers mean less reliance on government programs. Leaving benefits for those who truly need them. America is back in business!"
In reality, the unemployment rate is currently higher than when President Donald Trump took office in February 2025 and there has been almost no growth in net employment since the president announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs just over a year ago.
The Associated Press on Monday published a fact check of Rollins' claims about SNAP, finding that Republicans' cuts to the program were far more likely responsible for the historic drops in enrollment than any purported improvement in the economy.
Caitlin Caspi, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut who studies food insecurity, told the AP that current job creation numbers are nowhere near strong enough to explain the massive number of Americans losing access to SNAP.
"We’re not seeing a linear kind of drop-off,” Caspi said. “We are not seeing, if you look at the unemployment rates, things that might be an indicator that a strong economy was driving this change. We don't see, for example, a pattern of decline in unemployment that would match the pattern of decline in SNAP participation."
Caspi's analysis was echoed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which last week published an analysis finding that "economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades."
Instead, CBPP pointed the finger squarely at the GOP's budget law as the biggest culprit behind the decline.
"The deep cuts to federal funding for SNAP are shifting significant new costs to states," wrote CBPP, noting that the GOP law "also dramatically expands SNAP’s already harsh and ineffective provision taking away people’s benefits for not meeting the work requirement."
Rollins' claims about SNAP enrollment were also criticized by Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), who expressed disgust that the administration is bragging about kicking people off food assistance during a time when the price of groceries has continued to rise thanks in part to Trump's own policies.
"Better economy where?" Brown wrote on social media in response to Rollins. "You mean the one where Americans paid $300 more on their groceries to compensate for Trump's tariffs? Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it's a failure. That's why I've authored legislation to reverse the Trump SNAP cuts."