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.
Our latest senseless illegal war against brown people, born of ever-shifting lies and fought by the sons of the blithe un-rich, is Trump's ultimate Wag-the-Dog distraction from his crimes, failures and pedophilia at home. Having oafishly declared the Iran regime “a vicious group of very hard, terrible people” - pot/kettle if you add "inept"- his "warriors" are now being told this is "part of God's divine plan," with The Rapture imminent (after killing more schoolgirls.) One sage: "It's a good thing Congress isn't alive to see this."
Leave it to "the world's most famous bone-spur patient," Board of Peace chair, recipient of a fake FIFA peace prize and pilfered real Peace Prize, cornered serial sexual predator facing exposure and pathological liar who vowed "no new wars" while attacking seven nations in a year to launch "the dumbest war in US history" - a tough competition - and the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell et al at least tried for months to justify with a pack of lies before making "the worst foreign policy decision in history." Trump: Hold my Coke. Experts have long warned that with his hubris, thin skin, historical ignorance and affinity for heedless demolition of buildings, customs, laws, credibility, he could wreak the most havoc in foreign affairs, where his power is most unbridled - especially now, as he grows increasingly desperate and dangerous.
Thus, having amassed a vast arsenal of US weaponry in the Persian Gulf, did he launch our current "national obscenity." Ever presidential, he did it in a sober, cogent speech at a White House lectern with all the gravity the occasion called for. Kidding: He did it in a histrionic 2:30 a.m post on his crappy platform from his golf bordello after a $1-million-a-plate fundraiser - cue cringe robotic dancing to God Bless the USA - and a bellicose, garbled speech, his face smeared in make-up beneath a tacky baseball cap?! Later, the White House released a photo of a hastily assembled War Room with black drapes around it and some guy peeking in - looking for the omelette bar? Observers: "Looks secure to me," "Looks like the Goodman wedding reception had to be moved," "These clowns seriously started WW lll from a blanket fort at a shitty golf club?!" and, "This is not how democracies go to war."
But we just did - with no (Constitutionally mandated) approval from Congress, no (historically obligatory) public debate, over the objections of his own intelligence agencies and against the wishes of 80% of Americans, including his own base. In a slurred, spurious, deeply Orwellian speech, he "upended half a century of US foreign policy" by proclaiming the $1-billion-a-day-but-who needs-groceries-or-health care Operation Epic Fury (presumably named by a 12-year-old minion), which he randomly called "the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country." Citing zero evidence, he said many of Iran’s soldiers "no longer want to fight," are "looking for Immunity from us," and hope to "peacefully merge with Iranian Patriots (to) bring back the Country to Greatness" (like ravaged America) to "achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” Because, bless his moronic heart, nobody ever thought of regime change before.
The world's worst negotiator moved to set the Middle East on fire after walking away from ongoing, reportedly promising talks in which Iran had already made concessions; given the regime's "stupefyingly overt corruption," they included bribes to a deeply unqualified Kushner and Witkoff. Trump's Very Serious, deep-dive analysis: "We were having negotiations with these lunatics, but it was my opinion they were going to attack first." So he did. The death toll in a swiftly spreading conflagration is now over 1,000, including at least six US service members. Gruesomely but not surprisingly, one of the first strikes hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in southern Iran, killing an estimated 170 girls aged seven to 12. In a searing video of the carnage - woe to the murderers of little children - a distraught man stands amidst bloodied books, bodies, backpacks and shouts, "This was a school and they came to study."
Also killed the first day was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of military commanders - so many, in a sign of Trump's famed proficiency, that he told news outlets he'd had a "beautiful plan" and several candidates for Iran’s new leadership but, oops, "They're all dead." There were other miscalculations. Despite his sanguine gibberish about PEACE, Tehran vowed to unleash "devastating blows" and the intact, powerful, heavily armed, fanatically loyal Revolutionary Guard, showing no interest in laying down their arms or ideology, warned of "a severe, decisive and regret-inducing punishment” of their killers. As in Iraq and everywhere else and one more time, a historian notes, regime change through bombing has never been successful: "Regimes are networks, (and) when an external power kills a leader, networks often consolidate, not fragment. Successors emerge, as do Martyr narratives."
As to the US, what has yet to emerge is a long-term plan, a lucid rationale for the mayhem. They throw spaghetti at the wall, offering wildly shifting goals, timelines, narratives, excuses of "imminent threat" so flimsy they'd be laughable if not lethal. They want to "destroy Iran’s missile capability," "annihilate their navy,” halt their regional hegemony, stop them from building nuclear weapons US intelligence insists are over 10 years away. Trump babbles: He wants "freedom for the people,” Iran "just wanted to practice evil," we have to "get rid of their whole group of killers and thugs," and they blocked his 2020 re-election. He really did "obliterate” their nuclear program in June but "we found they were in a totally different site - totally different, so it was just time.” One analyst: "The lack of any coherent message seems to suggest the lack of any coherent objective." Robert Reich: "He has no fucking clue what he’s doing."
Bizarrely, Trump's reportedly calling journalists to workshop objectives and timelines: 2 or 3 days, four to five weeks? More bizarrely - is it possible? - suddenly-anti-war MTG charges the regime, deep in "the same old bullshit," is even polling voters to ask how many casualties they'd accept: "How about ZERO you bunch of sick fucking liars." Meanwhile, MAGA struggles to define the debacle they've birthed. In a few head-spinning minutes, Mike Johnson claimed Iran "declared war on us," insisted "we're not at war," and clumsily pivoted to, "a very, umm, specific, clear mission, an operation." Enraged Dems were more forthright. Ruben Gallego: "Trump ran on exposing pedophiles and stopping wars, (and) is now protecting pedophiles and starting wars.” Chris Murphy on a vanity war "nobody in this country is asking for: "It won’t be the billionaire children of Trump and his buddies that die." Steve Schmidt, likewise bitter: They'll have "died to change the subject from child rape."
In greasy contrast, dry-drunk war-mongerer, preening macho cartoon, and "colossus of incompetence and extremism" Pete Kegsmith yammers about "our warriors fully unleashed to achieve our objectives, on our terms, with maximum authorities." Also "iron fist," "true force multiplier," "hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly" while seeking "off-ramps and escalations (to) execute what we need" with, "No apologies. No hesitation. Epic fury." What an epic asshole. He snarled at a presser with right-wing hacks: "Why would we tell you - you, the enemy, anybody - what we will or will not do?" He went full psychopath in another, braying of "death and destruction from the sky all day long" and "rules of engagement (that) are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power. We are punching them while they are down." Also, "War is hell." Though Sherman added, "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation."
A Christian nationalist, Crusades fan-boy and sexist xenophobe who attends Bible study and Pentagon prayer services, Hegseth is a vital force in an explosive push to enshrine brimstone-breathing - and unconstitutional - Christian fundamentalism in America's military. Thus is our new war of choice being feverishly sold, not as a ploy to distract from Epstein, ICE, inflation etc but as a Biblically-sanctioned holy crusade toward a devoutly-to-be-wished End Times. Or in the more skeptical words of The Fucking News, "Jesus Christ, They Drafted Jesus Christ To Fight Iran." Since the Iran attacks, reports Jonathan Larsen, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has logged over 200 complaints from 50 bases of every military branch about commanders telling troops this is "all part of God’s divine plan," with Trump improbably "anointed" to bring the Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Christ to recreate a white, straight, Republican, gated-community America.
Larson reports one Christian NCO wrote on behalf of 15 troops of multiple faiths, all rejecting the call to embrace a nihilistic, Revelation-based worldview. "This is not what my faith is for," he wrote, "and this is not what my uniform is for." MRFF head Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force and Reagan White House veteran, said he's been "inundated" by calls with "one damn thing in freaking common" - complaints about "the unrestricted euphoria" of commanders urging troops to accept their fundamentalist theology. Declares Weinstein, "Any military (pushing) their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted." Adds Dean Blundell, raised Evangelical, on a "crusade of low-IQ warriors": "If history has taught us one goddamn thing, it’s that holy wars don’t end when the true believers say they will. They end when there’s nothing left to burn."
Alas, in the case of this ill-conceived holy war, true believers may be embarking not just with epic fury, an iron fist and a blanket fort but irreparably clogged toilets. Adding a surreal twist to an already dark tale of Christofascist empire-building, new reports describe toilet lines of up to 45 minutes for 4,500 sailors on the world's most advanced warship, the US Navy's $13-billion, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, now facing what are politely termed "significant sanitation challenges" as it idles in the Persian Gulf. The ship's vacuum-based sewage system has long been plagued by repeated failures and lack of maintenance, but the latest breakdown of many of its 650 toilets may be the final straw for sailors already weary from an extended, 8-month deployment; after Trump's illegal Venezuela assault/kidnapping, they were ordered to go straight to his illegal Iran air strikes/mass murder. Some have posted gross videos of flooding shit; reads one, "Join the Navy, they said."
Still, their Commander-In-Chief says everything's swell. "It's going to go pretty quickly," he announced of the widening chaos in the Middle East. "We're way ahead of schedule." Experts warn the Iran war, coupled with the shift of national security resources to immigration, raises the risk of terrorism; says veteran and Rep. Jason Crow, "It just shot through the roof. But Trump just bragged about the "exciting times," and asked how he'd rate the success of the war on a scale of one to ten, he said he'd give it "about a fifteen." As to the likely growing casualties from his "noble mission," he's shruggingly said, "That's the way it is." Talk about epic fury: See the response from Kendall Brown, whose husband is on the USS Gerald Ford. "If you voted for this, I fucking hate you," she says in a now-viral video. "If you still support this, you are a monster."
"America is strong because its leaders are strong. President Trump proves that every day," reads a DraftBarron website by South Park's Toby Morton. "Naturally, his son Barron is more than ready to defend the country his father so boldly commands. Service is honor. Strength is inherited. Dog Bless Barron." Arguing, "Leadership starts somewhere," it offers the loving testimonial from his dad, "People come up to me, with tears in their eyes, and they say, ‘Sir, you’re the strongest. Send Barron off to war.’" For now, Operation What Now lurches on. Trump reportedly bombed Iran because "he had a feeling, based on fact." Melania explained how to achieve "enduring peace." Oil prices quickly spiked, and millions were stranded after airports and sea lanes shut down. Because we are the most exceptional, can-do country on earth, the State Department's Office of Overseas Citizens Services hotline was there to help. Sort of. Dog bless America.
"Five things to remember about war: 1. Many things reported with confidence in the first hours and days will turn out not to be true 2. Whatever they say, the people who start wars are often thinking chiefly about domestic politics 3. The rationale given for a war will change over time. 4. Wars are unpredictable 5. Wars are easy to start and hard to stop." - Timothy Snyder
- YouTube www.youtube.com

A coalition of green groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday contesting the Trump administration's approval of what would be one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities—permission granted despite the project's threats to frontline communities, the environment, and climate.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice are representing the Sierra Club, which is suing the US Department of Energy (DOE) for approving Venture Global’s application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, terminal, which is now under construction in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
“We’re suing over DOE’s unlawful approval of this facility that will increase climate-warming pollution and do nothing to lower energy costs for Americans,” NRDC senior attorney Caroline Reiser said. “DOE is using an untested loophole to avoid considering the impacts of this project on Americans’ health and on the environment. The agency also failed to consider how LNG exports could increase US energy prices.”
As Earthjustice explained:
CP2’s pollution, traffic, sprawl, and visual impact would add to the harms the nine overburdened local Gulf Coast communities located near the facility already experience from nearby existing LNG terminals. These communities already bear the burden of other heavy industry and are on the frontlines of the bigger hurricanes and storms fueled by the worsening climate crisis. Approving CP2’s exports will add to environmental injustice, fuel additional climate change, and increase prices for domestic consumers.
CP2 is one of the key projects in what climate campaigners called a "staggering" LNG expansion under former President Joe Biden. In January 2024, his administration announced a temporary pause on DOE approvals of pending and future LNG export applications to nations with which the US did not have free trade agreements. A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump later ruled the pause illegal.
The United States is the world’s leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a “bridge fuel”—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Trump's DOE—headed by former fracking CEO Chris Wright—granted preliminary approval to CP2 last March, with the final green light coming in October. If built as planned, it would export around 20 million metric tons per year of LNG.
"The estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas from this methane gas would be more than the annual emissions of 47 million gas-powered cars, or 54 coal-fired power plants," said NRDC.
CP2 construction has already harmed local communities in Cameron Parish—especially local fishers. Last summer, dredging despoiled hundreds of acres of marshland, burying crab traps and oyster beds, and killing wildlife including the crabs, fish, and shrimp upon which fishers depend for their livelihood.
“We’re routinely seeing less and less catch. LNG has polluted our waters and disrupted the wildlife," one local fisher and dock manager said last year. "The shrimp just do not want to come in because of the LNG projects.”
President Donald Trump will soon be hosting a ritzy fundraiser even as many Americans say they're still struggling to afford weekly groceries.
As flagged by New York Times reporter Teddy Schleifer, Trump on Friday is scheduled to have a fundraising dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort where attendees must pay $1 million each for the price of entry.
According to a Times report published last year on the planned fundraiser, the money raised from the dinner "will flow to a super PAC devoted to Mr. Trump, MAGA Inc., which has vacuumed up hundreds of millions of dollars since he was reelected last year."
The Times noted that it's unclear what Trump plans to do with the vast sums he's raising since he is constitutionally ineligible to serve another term, although that hasn't stopped him from saying he wants to run again in 2028.
The fundraiser is occurring as a new report from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is projecting that US consumers will get little relief from food prices in 2026.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service forecast for February 2026, "prices for all food are predicted to increase 3.1%" this year, "with a prediction interval of 0.7 to 5.7%."
The USDA also projects that seven categories of food are project to see their prices increase faster this year than their 20-year historical average rate of growth: "Beef and veal, other meats, fish and seafood, processed fruits and vegetables, sugar and sweets, cereal and bakery products, and nonalcoholic beverages."
Leor Tal, campaign director at Unrig Our Economy, said on Friday that Republican policies including Trump's tariffs and cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are exacerbating the affordability crisis for US families.
"Families are already struggling to put food on the table and, instead of relief, they’re getting hit with even higher costs because congressional Republicans continue to prioritize billionaires over working Americans," said Tal. "Thanks to Republican-backed tariffs and devastating SNAP cuts, working Americans are not only facing higher food prices but millions of people are also losing the assistance they rely on to put food on the table."
An Associated Press poll released last year found that 53% of Americans believe the cost of groceries is a “major source of stress,” which is higher than the percentage of Americans who say the same thing about the cost of housing, healthcare, and childcare.
Anxiety about grocery prices is particularly strong among Americans earning $30,000 or less per year, as nearly two-thirds of them described paying for groceries as a “major source of stress.”
James Talarico's victory in the Democratic US Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday shows why it would be a mistake to think Latino voters who jumped ship to support President Donald Trump in 2024 are a lost cause, according to Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha.
Rocha, who worked on Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign and who is a senior adviser for Talarico's campaign, told the Wall Street Journal that the Democratic Senate hopeful won over Latino support in Texas by focusing on a populist economic message first and foremost, such as when he accused US billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
"Latinos are an aspirational people, and they want to aspire," said Rocha. "And they are also religious people, and they're... for economic populism."
The Journal noted that Talarico easily bested his rival for the nomination, US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), by roughly 27 percentage points in Texas counties whose populations are 60% or more Latino, including counties in the southern part of the state that were longtime Democratic strongholds that swung to Trump in 2024.
The lesson of the election for Democrats, Rocha told the Journal, is "don’t write off Latinos that voted for Donald Trump."
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Rocha elaborated on how Talarico and his campaign secured the nomination, calling the Texas Democrat "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
The facts about how @TeamTalaricoHQ won last night pic.twitter.com/1IUd9VpPUh
— Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) March 4, 2026
Beyond that, Rocha said, Talarico and his staff were simply relentless campaigners willing to seek votes wherever they could find them.
"He won because he showed up in communities," Rocha said. "He ran advertising in those communities. He had an amazing field team of 28,000 volunteers, over 600 community events in just eight weeks. They sent over 4 million peer-to-peer texts."
Rocha said that it was too soon to say whether Talarico's message meant that Latino voters were returning to Democrats more broadly, but added, "They will move back for James Talarico if you show up and give them a hopeful message."
Rocha's enthusiasm for Talarico was echoed by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"James Talarico is the future of the Democratic Party," Casar declared in a social media post. "He unites working people of all kinds to take on the billionaires who are making life unaffordable. He’s going to show Texas Republicans how powerful working people are when we stand together. On to victory in November."
Mark McKinnon, a one-time Texas political operative who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, said in an interview with Politico that Talarico's victory would be an unwelcome development for the Texas GOP, which will have to work harder to defeat him than other prospective Democratic nominees.
"A perfect storm is lining up for Texas Democrats," McKinnon said. "They have a nominee who can appeal to moderates and soft Republicans. Talarico could be Moses who leads the Lone Star Democrats out of the desert they’ve been in for 35 years."
Relatives of independent United Nations investigator Francesca Albanese this week sued US President Donald Trump and three of his senior Cabinet officials over sanctions imposed for her efforts to hold Israeli leaders and international corporations profiting from the Gaza genocide accountable.
Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was sanctioned last July for what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called “her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt International Criminal Court (ICC) action against US and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.”
UN rules prohibit Albanese from suing under her own name, so her husband—World Bank official Massimiliano Cali—and their unnamed child filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday.
“It is a shared interest for all who believe in international law, accountability, and the world governed by rules and not by force or by bullying,” Albanese, 48, said Thursday at a news conference hosted by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The lawsuit—which names Trump, Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants—details how US sanctions have severely impacted the plaintiffs' lives, including loss of access to banking, the ability to travel to the United States, their home in Washington, DC, Cali's workplace, and professional ties to universities.
“Francesca’s expression of her views about the facts as she has found them in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about the work of the ICC is core First Amendment activity,” the lawsuit states. “At its heart, this case concerns whether defendants can sanction a person—ruining their life and the lives of their loved ones, including their citizen daughter—because defendants disagree with their recommendations or fear their persuasiveness."
“Sanctions, used appropriately, are a powerful tool to disrupt and undermine the activities of terrorists, criminals, and authoritarian regimes,” the suit asserts. “Sanctions are abused, however, when they seek to silence disfavored points of view and to violate the constitutional rights of people the government does not like.”
Speaking to the New York Times Thursday, Albanese said that "I have experienced enormous hardship."
“There is a criminalization of my motherhood and the family bonds I have," she added, noting that her relatives fear committing a felony if they help a sanctioned person.
The State Department responded by calling the lawsuit “baseless lawfare” and claimed that the sanctions against Albanese are “legal and appropriate.”
“Francesca Albanese has openly supported antisemitism, terrorism, and has engaged in lawfare against our nation and our interests, including against major American companies vital to the world economy," the department added.
Albanese has never supported antisemitism or terrorism. Last year, she published a report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, in which she named and shamed dozens of international companies that are aiding and abetting Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Since her appointment nearly four years ago, Albanese has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and a fierce critic of Israel's policies and practices, including invasion, occupation, colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
Albanese accuses Israel of violating the Genocide Convention, as does South Africa, which is leading a case against Israel based on the landmark treaty—that Israel signed and ratified—at the International Court of Justice.
Last September, a panel of independent UN human rights experts—which did not include Albanese—found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a conclusion shared by many scholars, jurists, world leaders, and rights groups.
More than 250,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians, have been killed or wounded in Gaza over the past 28 months, including thousands who are still missing. Two million people—the overwhelming majority of the strip's population—have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Gaza lies in utter ruins.
Albanese also supports prosecuting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza that fueled a famine—for crimes against humanity and war crimes, as alleged in arrest warrants issued by the ICC in November 2024.
In an interview with the Associated Press shortly after she was sanctioned, Albanese said: “My daughter is American. I’ve been living in the US and I have some assets there. So of course, it’s going to harm me. What can I do? I did everything I did in good faith, and knowing that, my commitment to justice is more important than personal interests.”
While US complicity in Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza predates Trump's return to office, he has waged a broad attack on critics of his administration's foreign policy, including nearly unconditional support for Israel. Last year, he issued an executive order authorizing sanctions against anyone who helps the ICC investigate or prosecute Americans or US allies.
Albanese has been also targeted by several European nations. Earlier this month, the foreign ministers of Austria, the Czech Republic, France, and Germany have publicly called for Albanese’s resignation or termination after the pro-Israel group UN Watch—which is unaffiliated with the world body—circulated an deceptively edited video of her purportedly calling Israel “the common enemy of humanity."
“European governments accuse me—based on statements I never made—with a virulence and conviction that they have NEVER used against those who have slaughtered 20,000+ children," Albanese said in response.
As US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Thursday that "the amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically," four Democrats in the House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans to reject a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have halted President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on the Middle East country.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Juan Vargas (Calif.) stood with the GOP for the 212-219 vote against H.Con.Res.38, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The only other Republican to support the resolution was Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)—though GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales (Texas), who is facing an unrelated scandal, did not participate.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the think tank Center for International Policy, highlighted that given Massie and Davidson's votes, "if those four Democrats had stuck with their caucus and their voters, it would have passed."
"Everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
The House vote came just a day after Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) and all of the chamber's Republicans but Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) rejected S.J.Res.104, a similar resolution sponsored by Paul and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). As with the Wednesday vote, a range of critics called out Congress for enabling Trump's illegal and already seemingly endless war.
"This is a shameful abdication of Congress' constitutional authority to take the country to war," said Defending Rights & Dissent, noting the rising death toll. "US and Israeli strikes have hit elementary schools, hospitals, and the capital city of Tehran, home to 10 million. Six US service members have died. Trump is carrying out yet another regime change war of choice, and the American people have been overwhelmingly clear that they don't support it."
"This was Congress' best chance to stop further killings, to stop an all-out regional war with no end in sight, and to uphold the constitutional principle that prevents presidents from going rogue," the group continued. "We are deeply disappointed in both chambers' failure to stand up to this dangerous insanity."
Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's democracy and technology division, stressed in a statement that "this failed war powers vote is nothing short of cowardly, but Congress can't dodge the Constitution forever."
"By refusing to rein in President Trump's unauthorized war with Iran, Congress has allowed President Trump to make a mockery of the Constitution and is trying to duck responsibility for putting service members and civilians in great danger," Anders added. "But, this disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war. We will hold President Trump accountable for this abuse of power."
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, one unnamed "senior progressive House Democrat" told Axios that the groups including Justice Democrats, MoveOn, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Our Revolution "will primary anyone" who votes no.
After the vote, Justice Democrats shared the congressional office numbers of the four Democrats, and said to "call these spineless Dems who support Trump's new forever war with Iran and tell them to go to war themselves if they want it so bad."
Another progressive group, a youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, also took aim at the House Democrats who voted with the GOP, declaring on social media: "Absolutely ridiculous. Call them out. Vote them out."
Council on American-Islamic Relations government affairs director Robert S. McCaw commended all lawmakers "who voted to uphold Congress' constitutional duty and demand an end to unauthorized hostilities with Iran," particularly Massie and Davidson for their "courage to break with their party and stand on principle."
It is also "deeply disappointing" that some Democrats "joined Republicans to defeat this effort and enable an unconstitutional war," he said, warning that "their votes helped give the administration a green light to continue a dangerous escalation that threatens American lives and regional stability."
Earlier this week, Cuellar, Golden, and Landsman joined Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) to introduce a competing war powers resolution that would let Trump wage war on Iran for a month. Noting that proposal, McCaw argued that "Americans did not elect Congress to issue a '30 days of carnage hall pass' for an unauthorized war. If a war is unconstitutional today, it should not be allowed to continue for another month."
“The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, has the authority to decide when this nation goes to war," he added. "The American people must continue pressing their elected representatives to reclaim that authority and stop another disastrous war in the Middle East before it spirals further out of control."
As of Thursday, the Iranian government put the death toll at 1,230, though US and Israeli attacks continue, and Hegseth said that "we have only just begun to fight and fight decisively... If you think you've seen something, just wait. The amount of combat power that's still flowing, that's still coming, that we'll be able to project over Iran is a multiples of what it currently is right now."
On top of the lives lost, recent reporting suggests that Trump's war on Iran could be costing US taxpayers $1 billion per day. Calling the House vote "profoundly disappointing," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said that "everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
"Congress needs to stop listening to warmongering elites," Kharrazian added, "and start listening to the American people who are sick and tired of being dragged into forever wars."
The president has stacked a planning commission with three of his staffers, but organizers hailed a "huge victory" Thursday after the panel delayed a vote following an outpouring of public opposition.
President Donald Trump has gone to significant lengths to ensure the 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom he wants to replace the East Wing of the White House with is constructed swiftly—appointing his own associates and staffers to key commissions that must approve the project.
But even under the leadership of chairman Will Scharf, Trump's former personal lawyer and the White House staff secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday was forced to delay a planned vote on approving the ballroom until April 2—unable to ignore tens of thousands of public comments that have poured in denouncing the proposed ballroom as well as a parade of dozens of people who showed up at the commission's meeting to express opposition.
Scharf “cited the expected length of testimony from the more than 100 people who had signed up to say what they thought of the project, which he said might require the meeting to stretch into Friday," reported the Washington Post.
A longtime architect, David Scott Parker, told the panel that he had "grave concerns" about the exaggerated size of the planned ballroom, which "is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told the commission—which also includes two other White House staffers, deputy chief of staff James Blair and chief statistician Stuart Levenbach—that the proposed ballroom "is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries,” while Kyle Rowan, who described himself as an "ordinary citizen," had a succinct criticism.
“It’s ugly,” Rowan told the commissioners. “It’s too much.”
Just one speaker out of 30 expressed approval of the project.
The critics who arrived at the commission's meeting in person represented just a fraction of the criticism that has inundated officials since the panel began collecting public comments on the proposed ballroom.
More than 35,000 comments were sent in, and a New York Times artificial intelligence-powered analysis of the responses found that 98% of them were negative. The Post also used AI to determine that more than 97% of the comments were critical, and measured that finding against a sampling of comments that were manually checked.
Some of the remarks alluded to Trump's plan to fund the ballroom construction through private donations, which he has insisted will benefit taxpayers—but which Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs have warned is an example of blatant corruption, as companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts, including Amazon, Google, and Palantir, are among the donors.
"I am sick that Trump has torn down the East Wing of the People’s House, our house, and plans to build a monstrosity ballroom funded by not 'We the People' but by corrupt, out of touch, unaccountable to anyone, billionaires. It is beyond sickening," wrote a commenter named Donna Smith.
Julie Mason added that the ballroom plan has "opened the door to excessive corruption by the president and his billionaire backers through quid pro quo," and a South Carolina resident named Barbara Bryant added that the "financing of the project is perhaps its most troubling aspect."
"The $400 million private corporate donation scheme is a blatant attempt to evade congressional oversight," Bryant wrote. "By allowing corporations with active business before the government to fund a presidential vanity project, the administration has created a fertile ground for corruption, turning a national landmark into a billboard for private interests."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed without evidence on Thursday that the public comments "are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste."
"It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it," said Leavitt.
An Economist-YouGov poll taken last month found that 58% of Americans opposed tearing down the East Wing to build the ballroom, while just 25% supported it.
The public comments echoed those of protesters who assembled outside the NCPC's offices on Thursday at a demonstration organized by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The group has closely followed Trump's decision to staff the commission with his own administration officials and the "myriad of conflicts of interest concerns" that have arisen as wealthy corporations have lined up to fund the ballroom.
Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen who testified at the NCPC meeting Thursday, noted that one federal judge had accused the Trump administration of erecting a "Rube Goldberg contraption" to collect donations from "corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors" while evading "congressional and public oversight and [shielding] the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny."
“According to news reports, the expectation is that those names will be etched on the White House as part of the ballroom's brick or stone," said Golinger. "It is outrageous that the Trump administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. I urge NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing so.”
At the meeting, Golinger condemned Trump's decision to stack the commission with his own staffers and said Scharf, Blair, and Levenbach lack the legally required experience in city or regional planning to sit on the panel.
“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” said Golinger.
Scharf argued he is qualified for the position due to his past work in the Missouri governor's office.
At the protest, Golinger said the commission's decision to delay the vote on the ballroom was a "huge victory," considering Trump has filled the commission with his "cronies."
"Public pressure has mattered," he said. "It's not the end of the fight, no doubt they're going to come back and try to ram it through next time, but this [delay] isn't something I even conceived."
"Several very substantial bets were placed in the last-minute moments prior to the February 28 attack," said a representative for Public Citizen.
A consumer watchdog group is calling on the federal agency that regulates prediction markets to investigate what it says are a series of "highly suspicious bets" placed on President Donald Trump's war with Iran.
In a letter sent on Thursday to Michael Selig, the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a representative for the group Public Citizen pointed out that users have been able to make off with six-figure winnings from betting on political outcomes using platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, which "advertise that you can bet on almost anything, anywhere."
"While bets on the future of the Iranian regime had been sporadic and imprecise for months before the invasion, several very substantial bets were placed in the last-minute moments prior to the February 28 attack," wrote Public Citizen's government affairs lobbyist Craig Holman.
"For most of the year, bets of [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] being removed from power were long shots and low-balled guesses," Holman said. "In just the few hours before public announcement of the February 28 attacks, the odds and amount of the bets changed radically, rising from small bets at less than 25% to a few very large bets at over 50%. In the end, a few anonymous bettors hit the nail on its head and became very wealthy."
Holman pointed to a report from NPR that an anonymous account with the username “Magamyman” made more than $553,000 placing bets on Polymarket just before the Iranian leader was killed by an Israeli strike Saturday.
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reported findings from the crypto analytics firm Bubblemaps, which identified “six suspected insiders” who had won a $1.2 million profit on a US strike through Polymarket. As the Journal wrote:
Most of them bet on a strike by February 28, which turned out to be the exact date of the operation, the firm said. One such user bet $26,000 and won over $200,000, a return upward of 657%.
These users’ bets were among half a billion placed on Polymarket alone regarding the precise timing of US strikes on Iran.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said "it’s insane this is legal" and that "people around Trump are profiting off war and death." He added that he was "introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Holman asked Selig to identify the users who placed the highly lucrative bets and who, within the Trump and Netanyahu administrations, may have been privy to insider knowledge about the strikes.
The Trump family is deeply intertwined with the world of prediction markets. The president's media company, earlier this year, partnered with Crypto.com to launch its own prediction platform called "Truth Predict." Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to both Polymarket and Kalshi.
The president's CFTC chair, Selig—who has appointed the CEOs of prediction market platforms as advisers—has sought to shield betting markets from regulatory scrutiny, describing his goal as ushering in "the Golden Age of American financial markets."
Last month, facing what he called “an onslaught of state-led litigation,” Selig made the legally questionable assertion that Congress had given his agency the exclusive authority to regulate these platforms, not as tightly controlled gambling hubs but as commodities markets, which have much looser rules.
The Iran war is not the first time that mystery users have walked away with massive hauls after placing fortuitously timed bets on Trump's military operations. In January, a user won $436,000 on a bet that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be ousted by the end of the month, which they'd placed just hours before Trump's operation to remove him from power.
“Allowing prediction market platforms to bet on virtually anything, any time, is a recipe for disaster,” Holman said. “The American people should not have to wonder whether government officials are exploiting their access to classified information to make a quick buck. The CFTC must act swiftly to regulate platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket in order to protect the public.”
"We have totally unserious, completely incompetent people taking us into mindless, deadly war," said Democratic US Sen. Chris Murphy.
In an interview with TIME magazine published Thursday, US President Donald Trump responded flippantly to a question on whether Americans should be concerned about the possibility of a retaliatory attack on United States soil amid his illegal and intensifying war on Iran.
"I guess," Trump said when asked about a direct Iranian attack on the US. "We expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die."
Democratic lawmakers quickly seized on the president's comment as further evidence of his callous lack of regard for the potentially catastrophic consequences of the war he launched.
"This is deranged and dangerous," said US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy officer, wrote on social media that the president "has terrible judgment, and Americans have already died because of it."
"This is officially TRUMP’S WAR," Kelly added.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Trump's remark underscored that "we have totally unserious, completely incompetent people taking us into mindless, deadly war."
The Trump administration has confirmed the deaths of six American soldiers so far. Earlier this week, a top Iranian security official claimed Iran's response to the massive US-Israeli bombing campaign—retaliation that has hit American military bases throughout the Middle East—has killed 500 US soldiers.
More than 1,200 Iranians have been killed by US-Israeli strikes so far, including the more than 160 people—mostly young girls—massacred in an attack on an Iranian elementary school that US investigators believe was carried out by American forces.
"Six of our fellow Americans and over a thousand Iranians lie dead. Their families have been shattered. Billions of our tax dollars have been spent. The Middle East has been plunged into war," Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote Thursday. "And for what?"
The Trump administration has refused to provide a clear objective, justification, or timeline for the war, which is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion per day. Politico reported earlier this week that US Central Command is "asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days but likely through September."
"The longer this war goes on," Bruce Hoffman of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote Thursday, "the greater the incentive for Iran to apply all forms of asymmetric warfare in hopes of coercing Trump to abandon his war aims. Sleeper agents, lone actors inspired and motivated by Iran, cyberattacks on US infrastructure, and physical attacks on critical infrastructure are all possible."
In response to Trump's comments to TIME, Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group asked, "Can someone remind me who the heads of the DHS and FBI are at the moment?"
"Surely they will stop any such attack," Finucane wrote sardonically.