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.
Another Memorial Day: boasts, insults, "self-defense strikes," cheap clichés from a "Secretary of War" prattling about dead boys "delivered from the battlefield into the arms of a loving Lord and savior." Spare us. And maybe revisit the war to end all wars, which didn't - its "infinity of waste" and trenches with skulls in the sides where "he who had a corpse to stand on was lucky." Pat Barker: “A society that devours its own young deserves (no) unquestioning allegiance.”
"Happy Memorial Day to all," babbled our ever-unseemly Idiot-In-Chief, "including the Dumocrats, who disrespect our Military and all of the tremendous success that it has had over the last year," because obviously the best way to honor the dead is to not acknowledge their sacrifice but to denigrate half the ravaged country they died defending. Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, the infinitely hollow, "Wherever the American soldier (falls), he does it for the destiny of a nation like no other - there’s never been anybody like you." Also, noted Private Bone Spurs, 18,000 Williams, over 20,000 Johns, and other names fell, but "not too many" Donalds. Huh.
Adding to the day's eloquence with a much-needed "monster truck rally vibe" was inexplicably non-veteran, Hegseth bestie, tawdry aging rock star Kid Rock. Because "Tokyo Rose wasn't available," he was chosen by the Pentagon to honor American service members' ultimate sacrifice in a hoodie, fedora, gold chain and sunglasses, looking like "a creature you’d expect to hiss at you from the dank depths of a garbage bin" and intoning, "We are remembering the sacrifice and service of so many who are not with us today...It’s a special day. We’re thinking of them... Keep on Kid Rocking in the free world."
Then there was bombastic, dime-store-cliché-spouting Christo-fascist Pete Hegseth urging we "remember our republic was forged and purchased with blood, American blood," evidently only male according to his pronouns. Ever a fatuous buffoon, he declaimed "the sacred names of bygone eras to the 13 souls of Epic Fury (who) answered the call when it mattered the most (and) gave the last full measure of devotion," even when he failed them in an Iranian strike in Yemen: "They stood against the darkness of the world wearing the breastplate of righteousness (and) raced to the brink so we could walk in freedom and prosperity (and) may almighty God bless our warriors." Jesus weeps.
It remains unclear how many of the up to 22 million dead, both military and civilian, and over 20 million wounded, "the butcher's bill" of World War One, came to be blessed by almighty God, especially in its Western Front's godforsaken trenches teeming with sludge, rats, mud, blood, water and disease. The war's "inconceivable loss" and "purposeless waste of a generation" is perhaps best exemplified by the Battle of Verdun, where the French, set upon by German forces, adopted a "They Shall Not Pass” mantra that in the end saw over 700,000 dead on both sides - ultimately, vast "heaps of bones."
For many, the horrors of "the greatest conflagration the world had seen" live on through the searing literature, both prose and poetry, that emerged from them. Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est epitomizes the bitter, bloody tone that often prevailed amidst its "guttering, choking, drowning" victims - Hegseth's benighted "warriors." "Bent double, like old beggars under sacks/ Knock-kneed, coughing like hags," cursing, gargling, limping bootless through sludge, "blood-shod...deaf even to the hoots/Of gas-shells dropping softly behind," they reject, "The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori."
Siegfried Sassoon lived the privileged life of a British country gentleman, writing poetry and fox hunting, until the start of World War 1, when he served as an officer with the Royal Welch Fusiliers in France. He was awarded a Military Cross, was later wounded in action, and refused to fight any longer to protest "a senseless slaughter." On June 15, 1917, he wrote "A Soldier's Declaration" as "an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those how have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers."
"I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolonging those sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust," he wrote. He was protesting, he made clear, "against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed...against the deception which is being practiced on them. Also I believe that it may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realise."
His letter was read before the House of Commons and printed in The London Times. He expected to be court-martialed; instead, he was declared "mentally unsound" and sent to Craiglockhart War Hospital, where Dr. William Rivers was charged with restoring Sassoon’s “sanity” and sending him back to the trenches. The story of their real-life encounter, wherein Rivers came to diagnose war's "shell-shock" and share Sassoon's view, is powerfully told in Pat Barker's historical novel Regeneration, the first in a trilogy about the psychological carnage of war. "It (was) the Great White God de-throned. We assumed we were the measure of all things," Rivers says. "(But) nothing justifies this. Nothing nothing nothing."
Siegfried Sassoon's 1918 Suicide in the Trenches mourns "a simple soldier boy/Who grinned at life in empty joy" until he goes to war: "In winter trenches, cowed and glum/With crumps and lice and lack of rum/He put a bullet through his brain./No one spoke of him again./ You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye/Who cheer when soldier lads march by,/Sneak home and pray you'll never know/The hell where youth and laughter go." Too many of those young lie in a cemetery near Ypres, where one Inscription stands out in a sea of "For King and Country" headstones. It was written on the grave of Arthur Young by his father, a diplomat wiser than any vacuous Hegseth: "Sacrificed to the fallacy that war can end war."
Defenders of the planet took aim at President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday for transferring approximately 1.4 million acres of public lands along the Dalton Utility Corridor from the US Bureau of Land Management to the state of Alaska.
"This corridor encompasses some of Alaska’s most critical transportation and energy assets, including portions of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System corridor, the Dalton Highway, and proposed routes for the Ambler Road and Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects," the US Department of the Interior noted in a statement, framing the move as part of DOI's commitment to the Alaska Statehood Act, as well as orders issued by Trump and the agency's secretary, Doug Burgum.
As Burgum and Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy cheered the development on Wednesday, Andrea Feniger, director of the state's Sierra Club chapter, declared that "this is less a transfer to Alaskans than a massive giveaway to out-of-state corporations that don't want to be burdened by the federal protections that safeguard our lands, waters, wildlife, and communities."
"Gov. Dunleavy has repeatedly shown he is more interested in helping the Trump administration and fossil fuel executives exploit Alaska than standing up for the people who actually live here," Feniger said. "These companies will not be satisfied until every corner of our state is opened to industrial development and short-term profit, regardless of the permanent damage done to the wild places, subsistence traditions, and communities that make Alaska unique. Alaskans deserve leaders who will protect these lands for future generations, not politicians willing to hand them over to corporate polluters."
Bloomberg reported that "Alaska's acquisition along the highway north of Fairbanks is part of 2.1 million acres" that Burgum offered earlier this year, after revoking a pair of decades-old orders. In March, a coalition of environmental groups, including Trustees for Alaska, filed a federal lawsuit over the secretary "unlawfully removing federal protections."
While Alaska filed a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday, Bridget Psarianos, senior staff attorney at Trustees for Alaska, told Bloomberg that the land transfer is illegal. She also said that "the interior secretary broke the law when removing federal protections for over 2 million acres of public lands in February without hearings in local communities, without a public comment period, and without addressing that decision's impacts on land, water, and subsistence users."
Other groups supporting that suit include the Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club, whose director of conservation, Dan Ritzman, condemned Wednesday's transfer.
"This action will only help corporate polluters transform Alaska into an industrial wasteland—destroying irreplaceable landscapes for the sake of expanding the portfolios of mining and oil and gas companies that will never have to live with the consequences of this destruction," Ritzman stressed. "This decision completely ignores the wishes of local communities and tribes that depend upon these untouched areas for their livelihoods, cultures, and regional identities."
"Alaska is home to some of the country's last true wild places, and projects like Alaska LNG and the Ambler Road threaten irreversible damage to these precious landscapes, the wildlife that depend on them, and the communities that have stewarded them for generations," he added. "These lands belong to all Americans, not corporate special interests looking to exploit them for short-term profit. We are fighting this in court and will continue opposing any other attempts to sacrifice Alaska's public lands for the benefit of polluters and extractive industries."
Rebecca Noblin, an Alaska senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, similarly told E&E News that "handing this incredible stretch of federal public lands over to the state puts the communities, fish, and wildlife who live there in danger."
"Alaska officials envision bulldozing the area for a private industrial mining road and the LNG pipeline boondoggle," Noblin said. "We're fighting this transfer of our federal public lands in court, and we'll keep standing up for Alaska's wild places."
Climate and conservation groups have also recently sounded the alarm about Interior's forthcoming fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain, and warned—in the words of Kristen Monsell, the oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity—that that Trump's "ridiculously reckless" plan to dramatically expand offshore drilling, including near Alaska, "could cause thousands of new oil spills, threatening almost every US coast."
Congressional Republicans had been hoping their political standing would improve this spring when American voters received larger refunds thanks to changes in US tax law made under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
However, The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that much of the projected fiscal stimulus from the larger refunds has already been swallowed up by the rise in gas and energy prices caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, and the financial situation could grow even worse in the coming months.
Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY Parthenon, told The Financial Times that "the tax refunds have been largely erased by the increase in Middle East price pressures," and warned that "the longer the conflict lasts, the more we move to an adverse scenario where inflation proves more persistent and erodes consumer spending growth."
Nathan Sheets, global chief economist at Citigroup, told The Financial Times that the Iran war has only accelerated problems for US consumers who were already facing high pressures from the cost of living.
"By our reckoning, wage growth has steadily lost ground relative to the pace of inflation since the middle of last year," Sheets said. "First President Trump’s tariffs and, more recently, Iran-related pressures on oil and commodity prices have pushed up prices relative to wages."
US retailers have been expecting the positive impact of the tax refunds to dwindle, with Target CFO Jim Lee telling The Financial Times that they "will be fading over the rest of the year" as Americans are using larger shares of their incomes to pay for basics such as food and energy.
Lee's concerns were echoed by Walmart CFO John David Rainey, who told CNBC last week that while tax refunds have been helping Americans buffer the costs associated with the Iran war, that financial cushion is shrinking by the day.
“I think higher tax returns muted some of the pressure related to higher fuel prices," said Rainey, "and as we’re in a period of time right now where those tax refunds are largely not coming in, I think consumers are going to feel more of that pressure from higher fuel prices."
Walmart's stock price on has fallen sharply over the last week despite strong quarterly earnings, as investors express concerns that low-income consumers are feeling squeezed financially.
As reported by The New York Times, Walmart noted in its most recent earnings call that "sales continued to be driven by its low-price private label goods and higher-income households trading down to stretch their budgets," suggesting that consumers are under increasing distress.
At Thursday evening's Democratic primary debate on Mackinac Island, Michigan, former public health official and US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed suggested the three contenders play a game: "If you're on the stage and you have never taken a corporate PAC check from Blue Cross Blue Shield, raise your hand."
The progressive Medicare for All advocate put his hand up, while his two opponents—US Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow—looked on.
El-Sayed's challenge on campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry followed McMorrow's comment that "people can't afford to wait for a revolution that may never come"—a remark on progressives' push to expand the existing Medicare program to the entire population that, as journalist David Sirota said, appeared recycled nearly verbatim from former US presidential candidate "Hillary Clinton's talking points from a decade ago."
The people of Michigan are sick and tired of politicians who tell us what we can't have and shouldn't fight for...
We can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare. pic.twitter.com/AoqNVoI4zl
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) May 28, 2026
"Well, I'll tell you this, the revolution is definitely not coming if we're not fighting for it," El-Sayed said in response to McMorrow. "Anyway, all of that is to say, I think we really can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare."
"It is important for us to recognize that all of these issues go back to how we finance campaigns," he added.
According to state and federal campaign finance records, Stevens' US House campaign took $2,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield's political action committee (PAC) last year, while McMorrow took $5,500 from the PAC over the course of six years.
"The only reason we do not have Medicare for All," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, "is the corruption of private health insurance money and Democrats who have been unwilling to fight for it."
One observer pointed to a recent poll showing 65% of voters support a Medicare for All system, and emphasized that "the revolution in healthcare is here despite what Mallory McMorrow thinks."
"We just need dedicated fighters like Abdul El-Sayed to make it a reality," they said.
Along with campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry, the topic of the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobby came up when moderator Nolan Finley asked the candidates how they decide "how much influence" their donors have "over what you do, how you cast your vote."
"Haley Stevens, you take money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," said Finley. "Walk us through what that money means, and what it buys, and maybe what it doesn't buy."
Stevens responded by expressing her gratitude to various people whom she said had donated to her Senate campaign, including "grocery store workers" and "retired teachers," as well as pointing to political leaders who have endorsed her candidacy—but said nothing in reply to Finley's direct question about how she might be influenced by the more than $5.4 million she's received from pro-Israel lobby groups, including AIPAC, over her political career.
During a Michigan Democratic Senate debate, moderator Nolan Finley calls out Haley Stevens for completely dodging a question on how AIPAC's support of her campaign could influence her votes in the Senate.
"You're also just not answering the question." pic.twitter.com/3dGpQJ6F5R
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) May 29, 2026
El-Sayed confronted Stevens for "just not answering the question" before offering his view on what AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby donations "buys" from lawmakers.
Such contributions ultimately pay for "$3.5 billion sent to a foreign military that can be used here to give classes here, to provide healthcare here, to build schools here," said El-Sayed, referring to the military funding the US provides to Israel each year—including at least $16.3 billion the government has sent to Israel since it began its assault on Gaza in October 2023, helping the Israel Defense Forces to kill more than 75,000 Palestinians as the country blocked humanitarian aid and destroyed over 90% of residential buildings.
Resources for Michigan and other US states, said El-Sayed, is "where our money should be used.”
As The Detroit News reported Thursday, AIPAC has not directly sent donations to Stevens' campaign during the Senate election, but has instead appealed to its direct donors to also send contributions to Stevens.
More than 30% of donors who gave at least $200 to Stevens' campaign also donated to AIPAC since the beginning of 2025, according to The Detroit News' investigation—"well above her current primary opponents and her own benchmarks from prior US House bids."
AIPAC's apparent effort to direct its supporters to also back Stevens is legal under campaign finance law, but Ryan Grim of Drop Site News argued that the group's use of "obvious backdoor vehicles to move money to Haley Stevens only ends up making her look more corrupt."
AIPAC is hosting a fundraising page on its website, "paid for and authorized by Stevens' campaign," according to The Detroit News, while ensuring its name is not attached to the donations that are sent to the candidate through the page. Since Israel began attacking Gaza, approval of both the Israeli government and AIPAC have plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
Ahead of the debate, Stevens took umbrage at being asked about AIPAC's efforts to direct contributions to her campaign.
“I’m not breaking [Federal Elections Communications] laws by any stretch of the means," said Stevens. "Look, why would you ask me that question, first of all?”
Haley Stevens when pressed about AIPAC quietly funneling a massive chunk of donations to her camping and tens of millions of outside expenditures:
"Why would you ask me that question?" 💀 pic.twitter.com/LGGBeU9bJK
— umichvoter (@umichvoter) May 28, 2026
At the debate on Thursday, El-Sayed—who has rejected donations from corporate PACs—explained "what would absolutely not shape my perception" should he win the US Senate race.
"It's AIPAC money, which is being spent already in this race to pump up one of my colleagues on this stage," said El-Sayed. "I'm the only candidate today who didn't ask AIPAC for their support. I don't think that our taxpayer dollars which we pay every April ought to be going to bomb children, to fund bombs and tanks for other countries, when we got kids who can't afford basic things in our own."
Should he be elected to the Senate, he said on social media, "my votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them."
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Israel Defense Forces soldiers interviewed for an article published Friday by The Associated Press described ongoing indiscriminate killing of Palestinians—including civilians—despite a purported ceasefire.
One IDF combat soldier told the AP that he saw his teammates "yelling in celebration" and "congratulating one another" after blowing up a vehicle driving near the ever-expanding so-called "yellow line" dividing the Gaza Strip into Israeli and Palestinian-controlled zones. The strike killed everyone inside the vehicle.
“It was a jungle,” the soldier said. “After the ceasefire, the order was: If someone crosses the line, you shoot them.”
The problem is, the yellow line is often unclear, invisible, and often shifts. It cuts through farmland, roads, neighborhoods, and areas where Palestinians live and work.
Nadav Weiman, an IDF veteran who is now the executive director of the veterans' whistleblower group Breaking the Silence, told the AP that the military's permissive shoot-to-kill policy has "created a reality where countless civilians have and are being killed for crossing invisible lines."
One IDF soldier interviewed by the AP said “there was a general feeling that human lives are not valuable." The soldier said his commanding officer told him it would be "too much work" to clearly mark the yellow line, and that Palestinians were supposed to somehow know where it was.
According to the AP, one soldier said that "sometimes snipers fired warning shots at people close to the line... but commanders told troops to do more to protect themselves. The soldier understood that to mean firing more lethal shots."
"Soldiers shooting or ordering drone strikes don’t always know who’s crossing the line," the AP reported, citing interviewed troops. "Although soldiers must provide coordinates and get approval from superiors before striking, it’s hard to give exact information as people are moving," and soldiers reported colleagues "calling in coordinates based on a hunch or the last place they saw someone."
IDF troops interviewed by the AP also described "a sense of confusion" and "a lack of clarity on rules of engagement around the yellow line." Some commanders "paid lip service" to the ceasefire agreement that's been in effect since last October, but in practice ignored it.
According to Gaza's Government Media Office, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 3,005 times, resulting in more than 900 Palestinians killed and nearly 2,800 others injured, despite the truce.
“To call it a ceasefire is a joke,” one IDF soldier told the AP.
Israel claims that the entire length of the yellow line is now clearly marked. However, as Common Dreams reported this week, the IDF has incrementally shifted the boundary deeper into Gaza, where Israel now controls more than 60% of the coastal strip. This has left Palestinians sometimes waking up to learn they're in "open-fire zones" where they are subjected to being shot on sight.
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Israeli troops have previously described indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians, including children and aid-seekers.
While such killings have become less frequent since the ceasefire, some IDF soldiers dismiss the word as practically meaningless.
“We need to stop using this term,” one soldier told the AP, referring to the word ceasefire. “It’s not serving people that want to stop the war.”
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," said US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
President Donald Trump is reportedly dropping his effort to get Congress to sign off on creating a $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies amid furious public backlash.
A source described as a senior Trump administration official told Axios on Monday that the fund is "dead for now" after two federal judges last week weighed in against it, with one blocking any funds from being dispersed.
One source told Axios that the fund—which was set up to pay out allies who were allegedly unfairly prosecuted during former President Joe Biden's tenure, including potentially hundreds of rioters who violently stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—had "become a distraction" that was threatening the president's broader legislative agenda.
"The president believes government was weaponized against people—it wasn't just him," the source claimed. "But this isn't the time and vehicle for it."
According to NOTUS politics reporter Reese Gorman, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "helped convince" Trump to drop the fund for now during a conversation on Monday.
"The fund received significant backlash from Hill Republicans," reported Gorman, "and a number of House Republicans were looking for ways to stop this fund from happening."
The decision to drop the fund came as Democratic lawmakers have been lining legislation and amendments to derail it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Monday that his caucus wasn't satisfied just with killing the current Trump slush fund, but wanted to bar him from trying to create another one in the future.
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," Schumer wrote in a social media post. "This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough."
Schumer's comments were echoed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who also cast doubt on whether Trump had truly dropped his scheme.
"I don’t trust Trump’s word, and neither do the American people," wrote Coons. "I'm looking forward to working with my Senate Democratic colleagues to permanently ban this slush fund. If Republicans in Congress are as opposed to this fund as they claim, they should have no problem joining us."
The press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate who last week proposed a 100% tax on any California residents who received money from the Trump fund, celebrated its apparent demise.
"Days after Gavin Newsom challenged Trump’s J6 criminal slush fund and proposed a 100% tax on profits, Axios reports Trump pulled the plug," the press office wrote. "Bullies fold when you hit back!"
Sens. Elisa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Monday introduced a new bill called the "Drain the Slush Fund Act," which would bar taxpayer money from being paid to the "president, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes, or those involved in the January 6, 2021 insurrection."
In announcing the legislation, Slotkin said the fund was the latest example of Trump using the government "as a piggy bank for himself and his allies."
"This so-called... anti-weaponization fund is an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money, and it must be stopped," said Slotkin. "Our bill does just that. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are crying out for the president to focus on the economy and lowering their costs."
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) teamed with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced similar legislation aimed at blocking the fund.
"Congress must call out what we know is morally wrong," Suozzi wrote in a social media post announcing the legislation. "The checks and balances of our democracy and the will of the American public hold us accountable to that standard."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the reported decision to drop the fund was good news, but warned against overlooking other toxic policies being pushed by the president and his GOP allies in a new budget reconciliation package.
"As important as taking out this disgusting policy is," said Gilbert, "we must not let it be an excuse to green light the massive increases to [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] funding embedded in the reconciliation bill."
Legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, which has filed lawsuits aimed at blocking the fund's implementation, said it would continue pressing its case until it was sure that the president's plan was truly dead.
"Until the administration fully abandons the scheme, it's beyond dispute that it will not recur, and our clients’ harm is remedied, we will be in court challenging it," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We look forward to the government’s response to the courts and to our filings, and to prevailing on behalf of our clients."
A coalition of anti-war groups said Rep. Rashida Tlaib's resolution "is the only legislative tool that can force a vote and thus every member of Congress to take a position about this war on the record."
As Israel's deepening invasion of Lebanon threatens to derail peace talks between the US and Iran, American lawmakers are facing pressure to pass a war powers resolution to limit US involvement this week.
In recent days, despite a ceasefire agreement in April, Israel has ordered the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands more Lebanese civilians from their homes in the country's south, and declared all areas south of the Zahrani River a combat zone.
In what Defense Minister Israel Katz has described as a continuation of its "Gaza model," the Israel Defense Forces have systematically razed dozens of villages across southern Lebanon.
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who introduced the war powers resolution in April, said, "This must stop."
"Our country should not be assisting or supporting indiscriminate bombings and forced displacement anywhere, including Lebanon," Tlaib said on social media Monday, responding to a report that the death toll had climbed above 3,400 since Israel launched its assault on Lebanon in March. "We must pass the Lebanon war powers resolution this week."
The brief resolution would require the US to end unauthorized military cooperation with Israel within seven days of being passed, which proponents said may also limit the ability of the US military to share intelligence and coordinate targets with Israel.
Tlaib and other progressives like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) initially pushed for the resolution to be brought to a House vote during the week of May 18, but it was kicked until after lawmakers returned from recess.
In the meantime, several cosponsors have signed onto the resolution, bringing the total up to 17. They include Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.), who serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
War powers votes can be introduced by any member of Congress and do not need the support of the Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (La.).
A coalition of anti-war groups led by Just Foreign Policy organized a letter-writing campaign to tell members of Congress to support the resolution. The groups say supporters have sent nearly 24,000 letters to Congress so far.
"Israel's invasion of Lebanon has killed more than 3,000 people since March 2nd, displaced over 1.2 million—a fifth of the country's entire population—and caused over $14 billion in destruction. Hospitals bombed. Entire villages erased," they said. "Rashida Tlaib’s resolution... is the only legislative tool that can force a vote and thus every member of Congress to take a position about this war on the record."
Spokespeople for the Democrats on the House Foreign Relations Committee did not respond when asked by Common Dreams whether members planned on supporting Tlaib's resolution.
Israel has been accused of ramping up its attacks on Lebanon as a means of sabotaging peace talks between the US and Iran. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote on social media Monday that “the ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
It was reported by Iran's Tasnim News Agency on Monday that Tehran was backing away from talks with President Donald Trump in response to Israel's escalation in Lebanon. The country's foreign ministry said the US “bears direct responsibility both for the violations of the ceasefire against Iran and for the violations committed by the Zionist regime against Lebanon.”
However, after phone calls with a Hezbollah intermediary and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said on Truth Social that “talks were continuing at a rapid pace,” and “there will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way have already been turned back.”
Netanyahu responded to the reports by saying that he planned to launch more attacks against Lebanon's densely populated capital if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israel, and that Israel would "continue operating in southern Lebanon as planned."
A spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry slammed the leadership of the European Union for "blaming Iran for exercising its right to self-defense against US aggression launched from bases in neighboring countries."
Iran's government on Monday condemned the European Union's response to Iranian attacks on US military installations in the Middle East as "a masterclass in selective moral outrage" as the Trump administration launched new strikes against Iran over the weekend, with peace talks still at an impasse.
Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, accused EU leaders of "blaming Iran for exercising its right to self-defense against US aggression launched from bases in neighboring countries," referring to Iran's attacks on US air bases in Kuwait. Baqaei said Iran's strikes "against those bases and assets that are used to launch unlawful attacks against Iran are a lawful exercise of self-defense."
"The EU must remain faithful to the rule of law and the principles of the UN Charter that it has long claimed to uphold. It must stop appeasing aggressors while blaming those who respond to unlawful attacks," Baqaei added. "States have an established legal obligation not to allow their territory or assets to be used for invading other countries."
Baqaei's statement came in response to remarks from a European Commission spokesperson condemning an Iranian attack on a US air base in Kuwait last week, calling it a violation of Kuwait's sovereignty. The attack reportedly injured at least four US servicemembers and several American contractors.
The Iranian military said it targeted another US air base on Sunday in response to new attacks by the Trump administration, which launched its illegal war against Iran in late February. While Iran did not specify the location of its target, Kuwait said late Sunday that its "air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks."
The Iranian attacks followed the US military's announcement that it carried out strikes on "Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones" over the weekend. The US Central Command (CENTCOM) described the attacks as "self-defense strikes" and as a "measured and deliberate response" to "aggressive Iranian actions."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote in response to CENTCOM's statement that "this administration’s use of the terms 'aggression' and 'self-defense' [is] thoroughly in 'war is peace' territory."
The US military also attacked a Gambia-flagged commercial ship in the Gulf of Oman over the weekend, enforcing a Trump administration naval blockade that Iran has condemned as illegal and said must be lifted as part of any peace agreement.
CBS News reported Saturday that "the broad strokes" of a peace deal under consideration "include a 60-day cessation of violence, along with clauses that call for reopening the strait and a framework to reopen negotiations on Iran's nuclear program."
"Multiple sources told CBS that the arrangement also involves the potential of waivers or sanctions relief to Iran that could allow it to access billions in frozen assets depending on the progress of the diplomacy," the outlet added.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's top negotiator, said early Monday that the Trump administration's naval blockade and Israel's "escalation of war crimes in Lebanon" represent "clear evidence of US noncompliance with the ceasefire."
"Every choice has a price, and the bill comes due," he added. "It will all fall into place."
US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, wrote on his social media platform that "Iran really wants to make a deal, and it will be a good one for the USA and those that are with us."
"Just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end," Trump declared.