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, the belittling nicknames, the 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 both political and psychological fealty. See Mao jackets, Heil Hitlers, Stalin humiliating the clumsy Khrushchev by making him dance at his parties, Trump's own 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 "ritually unclean" shoes at Bush - who deftly dodged - during a Baghdad presser in the ultimate sign of contempt; clowns of any variety, from circus to MAGA, rendered most ridiculous by their flapping shoes. Imagine preening Pete Hegseth, who just banned photos of himself insufficiently hot, 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, "a brand you last saw when you were cleaning out your dead grandpa’s room and they were under his bed," are uncool. 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 likewise demanding their money back, and so is a coalition of two dozen states. As the pitchforks come out, online wags stay busy coming up with shoe puns: toeing the line, holding your tongue, comments laced with wit, heels with no soles, a new ad for Sieg Heels: "Nobody puts the step in goosestep like Sieg Heels!” Meanwhile, our own Führer's debased lickspittles stumble across the world stage, tripping on their own moral cowardice en route to the apocalypse. They just need to remember Solzhenitsyn’s elemental advice in Gulag Archipelago: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding." Or, God forbid, flapping those 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.
US President Donald Trump promised repeatedly during his 2024 campaign to temporarily cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but—in the face of Wall Street opposition—he has done nothing concrete to fulfill that pledge since returning to the White House.
That failure, according to an analysis released Tuesday, has so far cost Americans $134.5 billion in interest payments. Every day, The Century Foundation (TCF) and Protect Borrowers estimate, US credit card holders are accruing $368 million more in interest than they would have if rates were capped at 10%. The average interest rate for credit cards in the US is currently around 25%, according to a Forbes measure.
In January, Trump called on Congress to approve a 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. But the president has not pressured bank-friendly Republicans to back the measure, and he vowed earlier this month to refuse to sign any legislation that reaches his desk unless lawmakers approve a massive voter suppression bill that is likely dead in the Senate.
“Trump could work with Congress to deliver on his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%—saving the average American with credit card debt about $900 a year," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday. "But he is too busy siding with Wall Street.”
The new analysis by TCF and Protect Borrowers shows that over 40% of adults in the US are "unable to pay off their credit card bills each month, trapping them in cycles of persistent debt that balloons ever-higher due to record-high, industry-inflated interest rates and predatory fees."
Collectively, around 111 million Americans carry more than $1 trillion in credit card debt month to month, according to the analysis, and more than 27 million Americans can't afford more than the minimum monthly payment on their cards.
"Americans’ monthly credit card payments have grown by nearly 40% since 2018, a trend that is continuing unabated under President Trump," TCF and Protect Borrowers found. "From 2018 to 2025, the average monthly credit card payment rose by $553, or 38% (from $1,441 to $1,994). This growth far outstrips inflation."
"Since Trump’s inauguration alone, the average annual amount that Americans pay in credit card bills grew by an additional $1,177 (from $22,756 to $23,933)," the groups added. "The pace of this growth suggests that, in large part due to soaring interest rates, families today devote more income to credit card payments than at any point in history."
The nation's worsening credit card debt crisis comes amid a broader affordability crisis in an economy that Trump has hailed as the "greatest" in history, despite all the glaring evidence to the contrary.
A West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America survey published last week found that roughly a third of respondents—equivalent to more than 80 million Americans—said they have had to skip a meal, borrow money, cut back on utilities, or make other painful trade-offs to afford healthcare expenses over the last 12 months as prices continue to rise across the economy.
“Grocery, utility, and healthcare bills are piling up, and Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards—some carrying interest rates exceeding 22%—just to make ends meet,” Jennifer Zhang, policy, research, and data Analyst at Protect Borrowers and co-author of the new analysis, said Tuesday.
“President Trump promised to tackle crushing credit card interest rates by January 20 of this year," Zhang added, "but that deadline has come and gone."
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?"
The Pentagon reportedly wants Congress to approve more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for US President Donald Trump's unauthorized and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the administration weighs deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, signaling a drawn-out conflict and a possible ground invasion.
The Washington Post reported late Wednesday that the Pentagon has asked the White House to sign off on the supplemental funding request as the financial and human costs of the Iran war balloon. The $200 billion figure, which drew immediate backlash and vows of opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, is quadruple the number widely floated in recent days as the department's likely supplemental request.
"This should be an absolute nonstarter," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post's reporting. "The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that "at the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 billion per year."
"If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war," Gallego added. "The answer is a simple no."
Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon's request.
The Post reported Wednesday that "it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve," and that "some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress."
Prior to the start of the Iran assault, Trump called for a $1.5 trillion US military budget for the coming fiscal year even after the Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit.
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in Iran war funding comes after US investigators reportedly determined that American forces were responsible for the bombing—on the first day of the war—of an Iranian elementary school that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
News of the Pentagon's funding request came as Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
"The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding US operations, with the Iran war well into its third week," Reuters reported. "Those options include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials."
"The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports," Reuters added. "One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said Wednesday that "we are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time."
"Asking US taxpayers to spend $50 billion on a war Trump claims we have already won was outrageous enough," said Williams. "Quadrupling that within a week shows a total lack of understanding or control over what he has gotten us into."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, author of the Diplomatic newsletter, wrote Wednesday that "Trump blundered into what he thought would be a few day 'excursion' as he calls it, maybe Venezuela 2.0."
"That is not what Israel had in mind, the military has hit all of its targets," Rozen added. "He has no idea what he is doing, his intelligence and other aides were appointed not to tell him anything he does not want to hear; not a single one of them can explain what the goal is. Congressional Republicans have their heads deep in the sand, and now talk of a $200 billion Pentagon supplemental and sending more potential ground troops."
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, highlighted the Post's reporting on social media and called $200 billion "the tip of the iceberg."
"Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar 'Israel First tax' that's about to hit the US economy," he wrote.
"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people, and it is time for a new chapter," said the head of the IMEU Policy Project.
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."
New revelations show an IG report about wait times for people seeking help or services was altered after it was submitted to the administration.
A Social Security advocacy organization on Thursday blasted the Trump administration for covering up damaging information contained in an inspector general report released in December.
According to The Washington Post, a report from the Social Security Administration's (SSA) inspector general (IG) about call wait times for beneficiaries was altered to make it seem as though wait times to speak to representatives had been reduced to under 10 minutes per call.
"An unpublished draft of the report... showed that the inspector general had planned to report another metric—called the 'total wait time'—to measure the overall time it takes for callers to be connected with an SSA employee," the Post explained. "According to that draft report, in 2025 total wait time averaged 46 minutes to over two hours."
The Post added that this "information was deleted from the draft after the agency reviewed it before publication."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, responded to the report by saying that "now we know why [President Donald] Trump fired the inspector general at Social Security," noting that the SSA IG was one of several fired across multiple agencies at the start of Trump's second term.
Altman then argued that the attack on inspectors general was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle government transparency all together.
"Inspectors general are the American peoples’ eyes and ears in these agencies," said Altman. "The Trump administration is undermining that oversight at every turn. Under this administration, the IG has no ability to conduct independent oversight. There is no meaningful check on the Trump administration’s Social Security sabotage."
Democratic communications consultant Jesse Lee linked the damage to the SSA documented in the draft IG report to efforts by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which went on a firing spree of federal workers last year.
"So DOGE did a smash and grab at the Social Security Administration, breaking into the most sensitive data, firing phone and in-person case workers," Lee wrote. "Trump appointee waved around an IG report claiming wait times were fine—after burying the real report saying they were up to two hours."
Royer Perez-Jimenez had been stopped by law enforcement agents for a traffic violation in January.
A teenager who was arrested in January after being stopped for a traffic violation in Florida is now believed to be the youngest person to have died in immigration detention under the second Trump administration, after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified Congress of the 19-year-old's death this week.
Royer Perez-Jimenez was found unresponsive by a detention officer at Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida at around 2:30 am Eastern on Monday. The center operates as an immigration detention facility under a contract with ICE.
Local emergency workers arrived and attempted lifesaving interventions, according to ICE's statement, but Perez-Jimenez was pronounced dead soon after.
The agency said Perez-Jimenez "died of a presumed suicide," but did not detail how that was determined and noted that the cause of death is still under investigation.
According to a tracker by The American Prospect, which has been monitoring deaths in ICE detention as well as deaths and injuries of people who have encountered federal immigration agents conducting enforcement operations, Perez-Jimenez is at least the 49th person who has died in detention since President Donald Trump took office for his second term in January 2025.
Perez-Jimenez was stopped on January 22 by the Volusia County Sheriff's Office for allegedly "crossing traffic lanes without using a crosswalk" while riding a scooter, according to the Miami New Times. He allegedly refused to stop and gave the officers "multiple fake names," which are both misdemeanors, according to an arrest report viewed by the New Times, but ICE's statement alleges that Perez-Jimenez had been charged with "felony fraud for impersonation."
The ICE report stated that Perez-Jimenez eventually told the officers that he had "overstayed his visa and is currently in the United States illegally" after coming into the country from his native Mexico.
ICE said Perez-Jimenez initially entered the US in 2022 and was granted a "voluntary return" to Mexico after he encountered US Border Patrol agents. He then reentered the US.
While alleging Perez-Jimenez had died of a presumed suicide, ICE acknowledged that he had been evaluated by medical staff during his intake, did not report any behavioral health concerns, and answered "no" to all suicide screening questions.
A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to a question from News Times regarding whether the 19-year-old was in suicide watch.
In 2022, 17 members of Congress called for the closure of Glades County Detention Center over escalating reports of abuse. They said immigrants there were subjected to "racist abuse, often resulting in verbal abuse and violence; sexual abuse, including sexual voyeurism by guards who have watched women shower; life-endangering Covid-19 and medical neglect, including a near-fatal carbon monoxide leak last November; and regular exposure to highly dangerous levels of a toxic disinfectant chemical spray linked to severe medical harms and long-term damage to reproductive health.”
Black immigrants in particular also faced death threats, the use of pepper spray, solitary confinement, and "extreme forms of physical violence like using the restraint chair," according to the lawmakers.
ICE ended its deal with the center in 2022, only for Trump to reopen the facility for immigration detention in 2025.
Austin Kocher, a professor at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, warned that despite the accelerating rate of deaths in ICE detention, "Congress has not launched a single investigation."
"This is not complicated or controversial. I am simply asking Congress to take seriously the death of people in ICE’s care and custody," wrote Kocher. "ICE is an agency for which Congress is obligated to provide accountability and oversight, particularly when that agency is unable or unwilling to police itself—such as now."
Kocher urged Americans to call on US Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.), who represents the district where the facility is located, to demand an investigation.
"Light up his inboxes, phone lines, and social media until he does his job and looks into the conditions at this facility," said Kocher. "If you’ve been waiting for the time to take direction action, wait no longer: Act now. Demand accountability. Do not stop until you get real answers."
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline—which offers 24/7, free, and confidential support—can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org.