SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
 Anouska De Georgiou embraces fellow Epstein survivor Danielle Bensky as Marina Lacerda looks on
Further

Centering Their Voices: This Is What Power Looks Like

After decades of silence born of fear, shame, trauma, over 20 Epstein survivors came together in D.C. for the first time to publicly tell their grievous stories of rape and abuse - what did it cost them? - when they were 14, 15, 16 years old. Facing not just their own dark pasts but dogged denial, stonewalling, and a literal silencing by a senseless military flyover, they still wielded "the fire and the power of our voices" to insist, "We are the proof that fear did not break us."

It was months after Trump vowed to release the Epstein files "on Day One" and Pam Bondi said an upright DOJ was "lifting the veil" on Epstein's crimes - and decades after they were committed - when the resolute victims came to stand together, speak of "the weight we live with daily," and demand to be heard. Their signs said "He Is On the List," "S-H-A-M-E," "Trust the Victims, Not the Felon." Many had never met each other, and thought they were the only ones bruised and haunted by long-ago rape, abuse, enduring trauma. "Our government could have saved so many women. Those women didn’t matter,” said Marina Lacerda, who was 14 when she was raped by Epstein. "Well, we matter now. We are here today, and we are speaking, and we are not going to stop speaking."

Last week's historic press conference was facilitated by Dem Rep. Ro Khanna and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie - yes, of the AK-47-packing family Christmas cards, go figure - who've come forward to support a full release of the DOJ's Epstein files. The event, headlined by nine Epstein victims - some of whom had never spoken out before about their assaults - drew up to 100 other survivors in solidarity. "Courage is contagious," said one organizer, who was approached by several women they didn't know who said they "needed to be here...This gave me strength." Most had also "been let down by system after system," and far from the games of political chicken playing out elsewhere, felt they had to speak. "The abuse was real," one said. We know the truth."

The truth, in story after story, is harrowing. Lacerda, 37, was "minor victim 1" in Epstein's 2019 federal indictment. She was a 14-year-old migrant from Brazil working three jobs to help her family get by when she heard about "a dream job" giving "an older guy a massage" for $300. It quickly became "my worst nightmare" as one of a dozen girls she knew - "We were just kids" - lured into Epstein's mansion on East 71st Street. She went so often she dropped out of high school: "Every day, I hoped he would offer me a real job, like the American dream, but that day never came. I had no way out." At 17, he told her she was too old. Today, she finally feels she "has a voice." Airing the truth, she says, would "help me heal... help me put the pieces of my own life back together."

Haley Robson was a 16-year-old "high-school athlete with good grades and aspirations for college" when a friend recruited her "to give an old rich guy a massage." Her emotional testimony: "When I got into (the) room, Jeffrey undressed" - draws big breath - "and asked me to do things to him. My eyes welled up. I have never been more scared in my life." After, he paid her $200 and told her to bring a friend next time; when she refused, he "gave me an ultimatum...You come massage me when I call you, or you bring me friends to massage me, and I'll pay you $200 per girl. I hoped never to hear from him again, but he called every day." He was so rich and powerful, "I felt I had no choice - if I disobeyed him, I knew something bad would happen." After two years, an adult intervened; police "treated me like a criminal" and wild press accounts "hurt real people who have already been hurt."

"The truth is, Epstein had a free pass," said Chauntae Davies. From lack of critical victim outreach to victim-blaming, "Everyone seemed to look away" - especially when it came to our Predator-In-Chief. "Jeffrey bragged about his powerful friends, and (Trump) was his biggest brag," she said. "He had an 8x10 framed picture of him on his desk, with the two of them." Meanwhile, "What I endured will haunt me forever. I live as a mother trying to raise my child while distrusting a world that has betrayed me. Trauma never leave you. It breaks families apart. It shapes the way we see everyone around us...Unless we learn from this history, monsters like Jeffrey Epstein will rise again. It is not just my story. It is a story about every survivor who carries invisible scars."

Again and again, survivors spoke of raw, hard years of feeling alone and powerless at the hands of "an evil man" safeguarded by his money, power and connections. "You have a choice," Anouska de Georgiou told complicit Republicans. "Stand with the truth, or with the lies that have protected predators for decades." Lisa Philips stressed that Epstein's abuses reached far beyond "just underage girls in Florida" to "the top of the art, fashion and entertainment world. Many around him knew. Many participated, and many profited." "Hundreds of women have lived in the shadow of this man’s crimes," says Stacey Williams, who briefly dated Epstein until he famously, smilingly acquiesced to Trump groping her in front of him. "They deserve truth, not secrecy."

Towards that truth, the women grimly, defiantly announced that if the House fails to compel release of all the Epstein files, they will "confidentially compile" their own list of regular clients in the Epstein world in the name of "every woman who has been silenced, exploited and dismissed...together as survivors." "We know the names," one said. "Many of us were abused by them." They were cogent, steadfast: "We are not asking for pity. Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful - they are obligations, decades overdue." "We have lives to live." "We are not the footnotes in some infamous predator's tabloid article. We are the experts, and the subject of this story." "The question: Will you protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?"

To date, 134 lawmakers - all 212 Democrats, 12 Repubs - have signed onto a Massie-Khanna discharge petition to force a vote to compel the DOJ to release all files; they need two more to pass. Massie has faced "immense" pushback from a White House that calls the petition an "attention-seeking...hostile act"; rich MAGA donors have run $2.5 million in ads against him for opposing child rape, and GOPers who've signed on have been blasted. Among them - go figure redux - is MTG, who's vowed to reveal "every damn name” on the House floor if survivors ask her to. In response, former MAGA besties have called her a "FRAUD," "traitor," "phony two-faced bitch" and "backstabbing loser" who's "teamed up" with the enemy - again, lest we forget, for denouncing child rape.

Bootlicking Mike Johnson, who sent the House home early to avoid the issue, is right there with them. After claiming 20 women chronicling their rape as teenagers are "a hoax Democrats are using to attack him, like the Russian dossier," he feverishly insisted Dear Predator is "horrified" by the "unspeakable evil" that is "detestable to him" and "has no culpability" and actually, "He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down." Wait. What happened to the hoax? Caught in a clusterfuck, Mike later said he possibly "misspoke" or "didn't use the right terminology" - "The word is lied, Mike. You fucking lied" - but "everyone knows" Trump "assisted with the investigation." And of course he'll meet with the victims: "He has great compassion for them. The president has a very compassionate heart."

The guy with the very compassionate heart still calls the case of a demon who for years raped 14-year-olds "a Democrat hoax" by "the worst scum on earth" and "all the people that actually ran the government, including the autopen." It's also "something that’s totally irrelevant. We should talk about the greatness we’re having." As proof of the greatness, during a visit by the Polish president, to honor a Polish pilot who died in a training crash - having ignored the training deaths of four U.S. soldiers in Lithuania - he ordered a rare, loud flyover completely coincidentally just as Epstein's victims were telling their stories. The women paused, looked at the sky, and kept talking. Responses: "Classless move by a classless man," "He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing."

Flyovers aside, facts owe. Says Brad Edwards, an attorney for several survivors, "You're either on the side of the victims or you're on the side of evil." In an extended interview, multiple survivors agreed, "The government has failed us." The seven women were joined by two brothers of Virginia Giuffre, who killed herself in April after a lifelong struggle with the trauma of her abuse. "We've come together, beautifully and tragically," said one. "We don't just speak for ourselves but for every survivor whose story is still unspoken, for Virginia, whose courage lit the path and opened the door for us to walk through." Asked near the end of the interview how many had been contacted by the DOJ, felt treated with dignity, been heard, none of the nine raised their hands.

More damning scraps keep surfacing. Massie dropped one bombshell name in Epstein's "black book": John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire and huge donor to Trump and MAGA Mike. In a stealth video by shady right-wing James O'Keefe, a DOJ deputy chief of staff brags to a date "they'll redact every Republican" in the files and leave Dems in; the DOJ said the comments "have absolutely zero bearing with (sic) reality." The Wall Street Journal published, and House Dems released, the creepy birthday card to Epstein Trump denied he sent: "We got (the) note Trump says doesn't exist. Time to end this White House cover-up." Press Barbie called it "FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax" and - up is down - argued "it's very clear" Trump didn't draw or sign it.

Despite Dear Leader's "great compassion," days after the survivors met, nine attorneys for about 50 of them hadn't "heard anything" in response. Monday, survivor and Trump voter Haley Robson told CNN she'd invited White House officials to meet with her and other survivors: "I've heard crickets." Still, said Jess Michaels, a self-described "1991 Jeffrey Epstein survivor," their stories matter. "For 27 years, I thought I was the only one (Epstein) raped," she told the D.C gathering. "I thought I was alone. But I wasn't. None of us were. And what once kept us silent now fuels the fire and the power of our voices...This is what power looks like. Survivors united, voices joined, refusing to be dismissed. We are no longer victims. We are one powerful voice too loud to ignore. And we will never be silenced again." Women hold up half the sky. The heavier half.

SEE ALL
Department of Energy for the FY2026
News

'A Mockery of Science': Experts Slam Trump DOE's Climate Report in New Paper

The US Department of Energy's July climate report is "biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking," according to a comprehensive review released Tuesday by a group of 85 scientists who reviewed the document independently.

The department's "Climate Working Group" drew up the report as part of the effort by US President Donald Trump to fatally undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) determination, commonly known as the "endangerment finding," that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives by warming the planet.

"If successful," Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, says, "this move could unravel virtually every US climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules."

The Energy Department's nearly 150-page paper, titled "A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate." Dessler describes its five authors as "climate contrarians who dispute mainstream science." The team behind the report, he argues, was "hand-picked" by Energy Secretary Chris Wright to lend legitimacy to the Trump administration's predetermined conclusions about climate science.

The DOE report's five authors seek to contradict the much more rigorous analyses conducted by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports have been written by over a thousand researchers and which cite tens of thousands of academic studies.

The multinational panel has concluded that human fossil fuel usage has considerably warmed the planet, causing increased amounts of extreme weather, threatening food and water security, destroying ecosystems, and risking dangerous amounts of sea-level rise.

The Energy Department's report advances the main idea that climate scientists like those at the IPCC broadly "overstate" the extent of the human-caused climate crisis as well as its risks. Unlike other research of its kind, the department crafted its report in secret, which prompted the expert response.

"Normally, a report like this would undergo a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent peer review," said Dr. Robert Kopp, a climate and sea-level researcher at Rutgers. "When it became clear that DOE wasn't going to organize such a review, the scientific community came together on its own, in less than a month, to provide it."

Their review found that the Energy Department's report "exhibits pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics."

For instance, the report claims that there is "no obvious acceleration in sea-level rise" even though the number of days of high-tide coastal flooding per year has increased more than 10-fold since the 1970s.

It also attempts to portray CO2 emissions as a net benefit to the environment, particularly agriculture, by pointing to its benefits for crop growth, but ignores that the impact of increased droughts and wildfires far outweighs those benefits.

And it attempts to pick out isolated historical weather events like the Dust Bowl during the 1930s as evidence that dramatic climatic changes happen very frequently within short amounts of time and that the unprecedented increase in global temperatures over the past century and a half is not worthy of alarm.

"My reading of the report uncovered numerous errors of commission and omission, all of which slant toward a conclusion that human-caused climate change poses no serious risks," said Kerry Emmanuel, a meteorologist and climate scientist who specializes in hurricane physics. "It seems to work backward from a desired outcome."

Dessler notes that over 99% of the literature included in the IPCC's report was simply ignored by the Department of Energy. He described the report as a "mockery of science" akin to a "Soviet show trial."

"The outcome of this exercise by the Department of Energy is already known: climate science will be judged too uncertain to justify the endangerment finding," he said. "Once you understand that, everything about the DOE report makes total sense."

In 2025, the US National Weather Service issued a record number of flash flood warnings, while 255 million Americans were subject to life-threatening triple-digit temperatures in June. The previous year, 48 of 50 US states faced drought conditions, the most ever recorded in US history, while nearly 9 million acres burned due to wildfires.

"We live in a world where the impacts of climate change are increasingly being felt by citizens all around the globe—including communities throughout the US," said Andra Gardner, a professor of environmental science at Rowan University.

"This is perhaps what makes the DOE Climate Working Group report most astounding," she continued. "In a country where we have the tools to not only understand the impacts of climate change but also to begin meaningfully combating the crisis, the current DOE has instead decided to promote fossil fuel interests that will further worsen the symptoms of climate change with a report that turns a blind eye to the established science."

According to an analysis from Climate Power published in January, oil and gas industry donors gave $96 million in direct donations to the campaign of Donald Trump and affiliated super PACs during the 2024 election, while spending $243 million to lobby Republicans in Congress.

The result has been an administration that has purged climate science information from federal websites, laid off thousands of EPA employees, and gutted government funding for wind and solar energy.

Becca Neumann, an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Washington, says that "the goal" of the report "is clear: to justify inaction and avoid meaningful emissions reductions."

SEE ALL
The Inauguration Of Donald J. Trump As The 47th President
News

Trump Tariff Regime Slammed as Manufacturing Jobs Crater

US President Donald Trump's tariff policies, imposing levies as high as 50% on the United States' trading partners, have not proven compatible with his campaign promise to turn the US back into a "manufacturing powerhouse," as Friday's jobs report showed.

The overall analysis was grim, with the economy adding just 22,000 jobs last month, but manufacturing employment in particular has declined since Trump made his April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement of tariffs on countries including Canada and Mexico.

Since then, the president has introduced new rounds of tariffs on imports from countries he claims have treated the US unfairly, and all the while manufacturers have tightened their belts to cope with the higher cost of supplies and materials.

Overall manufacturing employment has plummeted by 42,000 jobs, while job openings and new hires have declined by 76,000 and 18,000, respectively, according to the Center for American Progress (CAP), which released a jobs report analysis titled Trump's Trade War Squeezes Middle-Class Manufacturing Employment on Friday.

"The manufacturing sector is struggling more than the rest of the labor market under Trump's tariffs, and manufacturing workers' wage growth is stagnating," said CAP.

Last month, the sector lost 12,000 jobs, while wages for manufacturing workers stagnated.

In line with other private employees, workers in the sector saw their wages go up just 10 cents from July, earning an average of $35.50 per hour.

"Despite Trump's claims that his policies will reignite the manufacturing industry in the United States, his policies have achieved the opposite," wrote policy analyst Kennedy Andara and economist Sara Estep at CAP.

The findings are in line with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Texas Manufacturing Survey, which was taken from August 12-20 and found that 72% of manufacturing firms say the tariffs have had a negative impact on their business.

"The argument is: We're all meant to sacrifice a bit, so that tariffs can help rebuild American manufacturing. Let's ask American manufacturers whether they're helping," said University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers on social media, sharing a graph that showed the survey's findings.


As Philip Luck, a former deputy chief economist with the US State Department, told the CBC last month, Trump has been promising "millions and millions of jobs" will result from his tariff regime, but those promises are out of step with the reality of manufacturing in 2025.

"We do [manufacturing] now with very few workers, we do it in a very automated way," Luck told the CBC. "Even if we do increase manufacturing I don't know that we're going to increase jobs along with it."

The outlet noted that while the number of Americans employed in manufacturing peaked in 1979, the value of manufacturing production has continuously trended up since then.

Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, told the CBC that "no treasure trove of jobs" is likely to come out of Trump's tariffs.

The president "walked into an economy that was seeing the largest manufacturing production in American history," Hicks said. "That is really a testament to how productive American workers are, the quality of the technology, and capital investment in manufacturing."

But the rate of hiring at manufacturing firms is far below its 2024 level, said CAP, revealing the negative impact of Trump's tariff regime.

US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) pointed to nearly 800 workers who lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector this week, including 120 whose company's sawmill closed in Darlington, South Carolina; 101 who worked at an electronics assembly plant for Intervala in Manchester, New Hampshire; and 170 whose sawmill positions were eliminated in Estill, South Carolina.

The US Supreme Court is expected to soon review Trump's tariffs after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that many of them are illegal.

SEE ALL
Sen. Bernie Sanders Introduces Medicare For All Act Of 2017
News

With Premiums Set to Rise, a Reminder: 'Medicare for All Would Save $650 Billion' Annually

Health insurance premiums are set to skyrocket in the coming months, which has prompted many progressive advocates to remind Americans that a less expensive alternative is possible.

As The Washington Post reported on Friday, the cost of health insurance is "on track for their biggest jump in at least five years" thanks in part to the actions of congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump.

Citing new research from KFF, the Post noted that most people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act are set to see their premiums rise by over 75% unless Congress steps in and renews enhanced subsidies that had been passed into law under the American Rescue Plan in 2021.

Congressional Democrats have said that they will not vote to fund the government past its current rapidly approaching deadline unless Republicans in Congress agree to an extension of the enhanced health insurance tax credits.

The Post report also pointed to Trump's trade war threats as a justification being cited by insurers to raise rates. Even though Trump has yet to actually levy tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, his Commerce Department is currently investigating their impact and the president himself has said that the tariffs could be as much as 250%.

"Some insurers, in legal filings with regulators, have said explicitly that the expected tariffs were raising insurance prices," the paper explained. "A document from United Healthcare of New York states that, to account for 'uncertainty regarding tariffs and/or the onshoring of manufacturing and their impact on total medical costs, most notably on pharmaceuticals, a total price impact of 3.6% is built into the initially submitted rate filing.'"

Given all this, longtime supporters of Medicare for All encouraged their fellow Americans to consider a different way of handling healthcare.

"Next year, Americans will see the biggest jump in health insurance costs in 15 years," commented former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich. "Meanwhile, the six largest health insurers raked in more than $31 billion in net income last year. Still not sure if we need Medicare for All?"

Warren Gunnels, a staffer for US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), cited studies by the Congressional Budget Office and Yale to argue that Medicare for All would be a net money saved.

"Your daily reminder: Medicare for All would save $650 billion and 68,000 lives each and every year while providing comprehensive healthcare to every man, woman, and child with no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-payments," he wrote.

Melanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of Campaign for New York Health, argued that the best part of Medicare for All is that it would simply make the private insurance industry obsolte.

"Your periodic reminder that health insurance is not healthcare," she said. "It's an unnecessary middleman designed to restrict access to healthcare and exploit people for profit. The fiscal and moral path forward is universal healthcare with Medicare for All."

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reacted to the news of insurance price hikes with a simple message.

"Medicare for All. Now," he wrote.

SEE ALL
Activists Demonstrate Outside ICE Field Office In Chicago
News

ICE Shooting Near Chicago Shows Dangers of Trump ‘Midway Blitz’

As details emerged on Friday afternoon regarding the fatal shooting of a man in the Chicagoland town of Franklin Park by an immigration agent, a member of Congress said one thing was immediately clear: Just days into President Donald Trump's deployment of about 200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the nation's third-largest city, "Operation Midway Blitz is creating a climate of anxiety and fear" that has already turned deadly.

"This climate of fear increases the likelihood of circumstances that threaten our community's safety and the safety of our public safety officials, too," said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.).

An ICE agent shot and killed Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez, who was trying to evade arrest and resorted to driving his car into the officers and dragging one of them, the Associated Press reported. The officer shot Villegas-Gonzalez, who was pronounced dead at a local hospital, where the agent was also taken to be treated for serious injuries.

ICE agents had stopped Villegas-Gonzalez and said he had a history of "reckless driving" and was an undocumented immigrant.

Erendira Rendón, chief program officer at immigration and economic justice group The Resurrection Project, said in a statement that the "horrific incident in Franklin Park shows us the real danger that militarized enforcement creates in our neighborhoods."

"A community member is dead, and an officer was injured," Rendón said. “These are outcomes that serve no public safety purpose and leave entire communities traumatized. Safe neighborhoods depend on trust, not fear. When federal agents conduct unaccountable operations in our communities, everyone becomes less safe.”

The shooting forced administrators at a nearby junior high school to place the school on lockdown.

The local news outlet Block Club Chicago reported that video of the incident was not immediately available.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat who has vehemently condemned Trump's deployment of federal agents—and potentially troops—to Chicago, called for the Department of Homeland Security to release "a full, factual accounting of what’s happened today to ensure transparency and accountability."

Thousands of Chicago residents have marched against Trump's decision to deploy ICE—possibly followed by the National Guard—to the city in an operation that the White House has claimed is being carried out in honor of a woman allegedly killed in a drunk driving accident by an undocumented immigrant around 140 miles away.

Also on Friday, residents protested at ICE's Broadview Village processing facility, where Block Club Chicago reported "pushing and shoving" took place between about 30 demonstrators and ICE agents in riot gear.

Like Trump's broader mass deportation agenda, the White House has claimed Operation Midway Blitz is aimed at carrying out the arrests of the "worst of the worst" violent criminals, but an analysis by the CATO Institute found that 93% of immigrants booked into ICE facilities in the first months of Trump's term have no history of violent crime convictions, and 65% have no criminal convictions at all.

One observer said of the killing of Villegas-Gonzalez, "it was only a matter of time" before ICE agents deployed to US cities fatally attacked an undocumented immigrant or other community member.

SEE ALL
Nancy Pelosi Speaks On Legislation To Protect Access To Contraception
News

Omar Brings War Powers Resolution After Trump Bombed Boat in Caribbean With 'No Legal Justification'

US Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Thursday, seeking to restrain President Donald Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean after he ordered a drone strike on a ship from Venezuela last week, killing 11 people.

The Trump administration has claimed, with little evidence, that the boat was a drug trafficking vessel that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But that narrative has come increasingly into doubt in recent days.

In a statement on the resolution provided to The Intercept, Omar (D-Minn.) said:

There was no legal justification for the Trump administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean... It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the "sole authority to declare war," but presidents have often carried out military actions without congressional approval, citing their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, particularly since the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001.

The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, requiring the president to report military actions to Congress within 48 hours and requiring Congress to authorize the deployment of troops after 60 days.

Omar unveiled the resolution alongside several of her fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and caucus whip Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.).

"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," Casar said. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."

In the days following Trump's strike on the ship, the administration's narrative that it contained members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang bound for the United States has been called into question by news reports and by those briefed by the Department of Defense, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the "Department of War."

After his staff was briefed on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that the Pentagon has "offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel."

While Trump has stated that the boat was en route to the US, the briefers themselves acknowledged that they could not determine its destination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted the president, saying "these particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing."

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that the boat "had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started," which further contradicts the claim of imminent harm to the US.

“There is no evidence—none—that this strike was conducted in self-defense," Reed said. "That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”

Even if the people aboard the boat were carrying drugs, as the administration claims, there is no legal precedent for the crime of drug trafficking justifying such an extraordinary use of military retaliation.

The White House has attempted to argue that the president has the legal authority to summarily kill suspected drug smugglers using an unprecedented legal rationale, which labels cartel members as tantamount to enemy combatants, who are allowed to be killed in war, because the product they carry causes thousands of deaths per year in the US. Legal analysts have described this as a flimsy pretext for extrajudicial murder.

Scott R. Anderson, a senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School and a former legal adviser at the US State Department, wrote for the Lawfare blog:

There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that.

Marty Lederman, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, wrote for Just Security:

Regardless of which laws might have been broken, what’s more alarming, and of greater long-term concern, is that U.S. military personnel crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law."

The resolution introduced by Omar is the first seeking to restrain Trump's ability to launch military strikes against Venezuela. But it's not the first seeking to rein in his wide-ranging use of unilateral warmaking authority.

In June, following his launch of airstrikes against Iran, war powers resolutions introduced in the House and Senate to limit Trump's actions in the Middle East narrowly failed despite receiving some Republican support.

Though specific attempts to rein in Trump's power have failed, the House did pass a bipartisan resolution earlier this week to repeal the AUMFs issued by Congress in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and which presidents have used for over two decades to justify a wide range of military actions across the Middle East without congressional oversight.

If passed, Omar's measure would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Venezuela or launching more strikes on transnational criminal organizations that he has designated as terrorist groups since February, including Tren de Aragua.

García, the Progressive Caucus whip, said the resolution was an effort to begin restoring Congress' authority to check a president operating with impunity.

"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump’s reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he’s lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions,” said García. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and— consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war—reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action.”

SEE ALL