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.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield raises her hand to abstain during a U.N. Security Council vote on a Gaza cease-fire resolution on March 25, 2024 in New York City.
"This resolution must be implemented," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. "Failure would be unforgivable."
The U.S. on Monday declined to veto but still abstained from a United Nations Security Council on Monday to adopt a resolution demanding an "immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan" in the embattled Gaza Strip, a move that came amid an ongoing Israeli genocide in which more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and hundreds of thousands of others are starving.
The Security Council voted 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining, to approve a resolution for the cessation of hostilities during the Muslim holy month after member states overcame a sticking point over the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier draft version. Instead, the resolution calls for an "immediate" cease-fire.
"Humanity prevails. Humanity always prevails," Palestine's U.N. mission said on social media following the vote. "Today's historic vote by the Security Council for a #ceasefire and an end to Israel's crimes is a first step towards justice. The resolution is binding."
The U.S. had vetoed three of the previous four cease-fire resolutions.
"This resolution must be implemented," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said following Monday's vote. "Failure would be unforgivable."
As the U.N. News explained:
The resolution is a bare-bones call for a cease-fire during the month of Ramadan, which began on March 11. It also demands the return of about 130 hostages seized in Israel and held in Gaza and emphasizes the urgent need to allow ample lifesaving aid to reach a starving population in the besieged enclave.
The demand to end hostilities has so far eluded the council following the Israeli forces' invasion of Gaza in October after Hamas attacks left almost 1,200 dead and 240 taken hostage.
Since then, Israel's daily bombardment alongside its near-total blockade of water, electricity, and lifesaving aid has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, where a recent U.N.-backed report showed an imminent famine unfolding.
Palestinians—especially children—are starving to death in Gaza. Hospitals are under attack, with Israeli forces reportedly executing large numbers of people inside al-Shifa Hospital.
Meanwhile, the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah—most of them refugees forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are bracing for an anticipated ground invasion, which Israeli leaders say will proceed despite a warning from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that such an operation would have "consequences."
Monday's vote followed intense negotiations over the measure introduced by 10 non-permanent Security Council members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the vote on the resolution was delayed 20 minutes as the United States "pushed to include condemnation of Hamas in the text."
"This is despite the fact that the U.S. has VETOED previous resolutions that clearly condemned Hamas," Parsi wrote on social media.
Parsi said:
America's abstention in today's U.N. vote marks a real shift by [President Joe] Biden—this is the first time we've seen his administration's rhetorical shift in favor of a cease-fire translate into political action.
There's no question that all of the domestic pressure on the Biden administration to stop blocking a cease-fire is having an impact. The pressure is working—without it, Biden likely would've vetoed today' resolution. Yet, while Biden is no longer standing in the way of a cease-fire, this is hardly the same thing as helping to bring about a cease-fire. America must do much more to bring an end to this war.
Politically, today's vote will certainly increase pressure on Washington to help implement an immediate cease-fire. Will the Biden administration continue to sell Israel arms, even if Israel refuses the UNSC's call for a cease-fire?
The United States—which, despite growing frustration over genocidal atrocities, still arms Israel—brushed off a threat from far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned visit to Washigton by a high-level Israeli delegation if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.
The Associated Press reported Netanyahu followed through with his threat and canceled the trip.
Human rights defenders welcomed Monday's vote.
"Israel needs to immediately respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza's population, and halting unlawful attacks," Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch's U.N. program, said in a statement.
"Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage," he added. "The U.S. and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel."
In the United States, progressive lawmakers also welcomed the resolution's adoption.
"The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and full humanitarian access," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has been criticized by the left for his earlier failure to call for a cease-fire. "The U.S. must push all parties to honor this cease-fire and rush massive humanitarian aid into Gaza to feed starving people."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) praised the Biden administration's "significant change" in policy after three previous vetoes.
"Grassroots activism is making the difference," he added. "Moral positions that just a few weeks ago were described as fringe are starting to be vindicated."
Meanwhile, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said it was "disappointed" by the Biden administration's veto, which the group said "fails to acknowledge that Hamas is to blame for ongoing hostilities and could stop the fighting by surrendering and releasing all the hostages."
In response, Jewish Voice for Peace Action asserted: "AIPAC will not accept anything less than complete and unquestioning amplification of Israeli military's talking points. They are fueling every part of this genocide."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The U.S. on Monday declined to veto but still abstained from a United Nations Security Council on Monday to adopt a resolution demanding an "immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan" in the embattled Gaza Strip, a move that came amid an ongoing Israeli genocide in which more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and hundreds of thousands of others are starving.
The Security Council voted 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining, to approve a resolution for the cessation of hostilities during the Muslim holy month after member states overcame a sticking point over the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier draft version. Instead, the resolution calls for an "immediate" cease-fire.
"Humanity prevails. Humanity always prevails," Palestine's U.N. mission said on social media following the vote. "Today's historic vote by the Security Council for a #ceasefire and an end to Israel's crimes is a first step towards justice. The resolution is binding."
The U.S. had vetoed three of the previous four cease-fire resolutions.
"This resolution must be implemented," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said following Monday's vote. "Failure would be unforgivable."
As the U.N. News explained:
The resolution is a bare-bones call for a cease-fire during the month of Ramadan, which began on March 11. It also demands the return of about 130 hostages seized in Israel and held in Gaza and emphasizes the urgent need to allow ample lifesaving aid to reach a starving population in the besieged enclave.
The demand to end hostilities has so far eluded the council following the Israeli forces' invasion of Gaza in October after Hamas attacks left almost 1,200 dead and 240 taken hostage.
Since then, Israel's daily bombardment alongside its near-total blockade of water, electricity, and lifesaving aid has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, where a recent U.N.-backed report showed an imminent famine unfolding.
Palestinians—especially children—are starving to death in Gaza. Hospitals are under attack, with Israeli forces reportedly executing large numbers of people inside al-Shifa Hospital.
Meanwhile, the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah—most of them refugees forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are bracing for an anticipated ground invasion, which Israeli leaders say will proceed despite a warning from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that such an operation would have "consequences."
Monday's vote followed intense negotiations over the measure introduced by 10 non-permanent Security Council members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the vote on the resolution was delayed 20 minutes as the United States "pushed to include condemnation of Hamas in the text."
"This is despite the fact that the U.S. has VETOED previous resolutions that clearly condemned Hamas," Parsi wrote on social media.
Parsi said:
America's abstention in today's U.N. vote marks a real shift by [President Joe] Biden—this is the first time we've seen his administration's rhetorical shift in favor of a cease-fire translate into political action.
There's no question that all of the domestic pressure on the Biden administration to stop blocking a cease-fire is having an impact. The pressure is working—without it, Biden likely would've vetoed today' resolution. Yet, while Biden is no longer standing in the way of a cease-fire, this is hardly the same thing as helping to bring about a cease-fire. America must do much more to bring an end to this war.
Politically, today's vote will certainly increase pressure on Washington to help implement an immediate cease-fire. Will the Biden administration continue to sell Israel arms, even if Israel refuses the UNSC's call for a cease-fire?
The United States—which, despite growing frustration over genocidal atrocities, still arms Israel—brushed off a threat from far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned visit to Washigton by a high-level Israeli delegation if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.
The Associated Press reported Netanyahu followed through with his threat and canceled the trip.
Human rights defenders welcomed Monday's vote.
"Israel needs to immediately respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza's population, and halting unlawful attacks," Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch's U.N. program, said in a statement.
"Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage," he added. "The U.S. and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel."
In the United States, progressive lawmakers also welcomed the resolution's adoption.
"The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and full humanitarian access," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has been criticized by the left for his earlier failure to call for a cease-fire. "The U.S. must push all parties to honor this cease-fire and rush massive humanitarian aid into Gaza to feed starving people."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) praised the Biden administration's "significant change" in policy after three previous vetoes.
"Grassroots activism is making the difference," he added. "Moral positions that just a few weeks ago were described as fringe are starting to be vindicated."
Meanwhile, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said it was "disappointed" by the Biden administration's veto, which the group said "fails to acknowledge that Hamas is to blame for ongoing hostilities and could stop the fighting by surrendering and releasing all the hostages."
In response, Jewish Voice for Peace Action asserted: "AIPAC will not accept anything less than complete and unquestioning amplification of Israeli military's talking points. They are fueling every part of this genocide."
The U.S. on Monday declined to veto but still abstained from a United Nations Security Council on Monday to adopt a resolution demanding an "immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan" in the embattled Gaza Strip, a move that came amid an ongoing Israeli genocide in which more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and hundreds of thousands of others are starving.
The Security Council voted 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining, to approve a resolution for the cessation of hostilities during the Muslim holy month after member states overcame a sticking point over the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier draft version. Instead, the resolution calls for an "immediate" cease-fire.
"Humanity prevails. Humanity always prevails," Palestine's U.N. mission said on social media following the vote. "Today's historic vote by the Security Council for a #ceasefire and an end to Israel's crimes is a first step towards justice. The resolution is binding."
The U.S. had vetoed three of the previous four cease-fire resolutions.
"This resolution must be implemented," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said following Monday's vote. "Failure would be unforgivable."
As the U.N. News explained:
The resolution is a bare-bones call for a cease-fire during the month of Ramadan, which began on March 11. It also demands the return of about 130 hostages seized in Israel and held in Gaza and emphasizes the urgent need to allow ample lifesaving aid to reach a starving population in the besieged enclave.
The demand to end hostilities has so far eluded the council following the Israeli forces' invasion of Gaza in October after Hamas attacks left almost 1,200 dead and 240 taken hostage.
Since then, Israel's daily bombardment alongside its near-total blockade of water, electricity, and lifesaving aid has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, where a recent U.N.-backed report showed an imminent famine unfolding.
Palestinians—especially children—are starving to death in Gaza. Hospitals are under attack, with Israeli forces reportedly executing large numbers of people inside al-Shifa Hospital.
Meanwhile, the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah—most of them refugees forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are bracing for an anticipated ground invasion, which Israeli leaders say will proceed despite a warning from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that such an operation would have "consequences."
Monday's vote followed intense negotiations over the measure introduced by 10 non-permanent Security Council members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the vote on the resolution was delayed 20 minutes as the United States "pushed to include condemnation of Hamas in the text."
"This is despite the fact that the U.S. has VETOED previous resolutions that clearly condemned Hamas," Parsi wrote on social media.
Parsi said:
America's abstention in today's U.N. vote marks a real shift by [President Joe] Biden—this is the first time we've seen his administration's rhetorical shift in favor of a cease-fire translate into political action.
There's no question that all of the domestic pressure on the Biden administration to stop blocking a cease-fire is having an impact. The pressure is working—without it, Biden likely would've vetoed today' resolution. Yet, while Biden is no longer standing in the way of a cease-fire, this is hardly the same thing as helping to bring about a cease-fire. America must do much more to bring an end to this war.
Politically, today's vote will certainly increase pressure on Washington to help implement an immediate cease-fire. Will the Biden administration continue to sell Israel arms, even if Israel refuses the UNSC's call for a cease-fire?
The United States—which, despite growing frustration over genocidal atrocities, still arms Israel—brushed off a threat from far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned visit to Washigton by a high-level Israeli delegation if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.
The Associated Press reported Netanyahu followed through with his threat and canceled the trip.
Human rights defenders welcomed Monday's vote.
"Israel needs to immediately respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza's population, and halting unlawful attacks," Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch's U.N. program, said in a statement.
"Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage," he added. "The U.S. and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel."
In the United States, progressive lawmakers also welcomed the resolution's adoption.
"The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and full humanitarian access," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has been criticized by the left for his earlier failure to call for a cease-fire. "The U.S. must push all parties to honor this cease-fire and rush massive humanitarian aid into Gaza to feed starving people."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) praised the Biden administration's "significant change" in policy after three previous vetoes.
"Grassroots activism is making the difference," he added. "Moral positions that just a few weeks ago were described as fringe are starting to be vindicated."
Meanwhile, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said it was "disappointed" by the Biden administration's veto, which the group said "fails to acknowledge that Hamas is to blame for ongoing hostilities and could stop the fighting by surrendering and releasing all the hostages."
In response, Jewish Voice for Peace Action asserted: "AIPAC will not accept anything less than complete and unquestioning amplification of Israeli military's talking points. They are fueling every part of this genocide."
A Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer called on Kathy Jennings to "use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza."
A leading U.S. legal advocacy group on Wednesday urged Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings to pursue revoking the corporate charter of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose aid distribution points in the embattled Palestinian enclave have been the sites of near-daily massacres in which thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed or wounded.
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urgently requested a meeting with Jennings, a Democrat, whom the group asserted has a legal obligation to file suit in the state's Chancery Court to seek revocation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) charter because the purported charity "is complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide."
CCR said Wednesday that Jennings "has neither responded" to the group's request "nor publicly addressed the serious claims raised against the Delaware-registered entity."
"GHF woefully fails to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence and has proven to be an opportunistic and obsequious entity masquerading as a humanitarian organization," CCR asserted. "Since the start of its operations in late May, at least 1,400 Palestinians have died seeking aid, with at least 859 killed at or near GHF sites, which it operates in close coordination with the Israeli government and U.S. private military contractors."
One of those contractors, former U.S. Army Green Beret Col. Anthony Aguilar, quit his job and blew the whistle on what he said he saw while working at GHF aid sites.
"What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law," Aguilar told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman earlier this month. "This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth... The sites were designed to lure, bait aid, and kill."
Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers have admitted to receiving orders to open fire on Palestinian aid-seekers with live bullets and artillery rounds, even when the civilians posed no security threat.
"It is against this backdrop that [President Donald] Trump's State Department approved a $30 million United States Agency for International Development grant for GHF," CCR noted. "In so doing, the State Department exempted it from the audit usually required for new USAID grantees."
"It also waived mandatory counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards and overrode vetting mechanisms, including 58 internal objections to GHF's application," the group added. "The Center for Constitutional Rights has submitted a [Freedom of Information Act] request seeking information on the administration's funding of GHF."
CCR continued:
The letter to Jennings opens a new front in the effort to hold GHF accountable. The Center for Constitutional Rights letter provides extensive evidence that, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, GHF is contributing to the forced displacement, illegal killing, and genocide of Palestinians, while serving as a fig leaf for Israel's continued denial of access to food and water. Given this, Jennings has not only the authority, but the obligation to investigate GHF to determine if it abused its charter by engaging in unlawful activity. She may then file suit with the Court of Chancery, which has the authority to revoke GHF's charter.
CCR's August 5 letter notes that Jennings has previously exercised such authority. In 2019, she filed suit to dissolve shell companies affiliated with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Richard Gates after they pleaded guilty to money laundering and other crimes.
"Attorney General Jennings has the power to significantly change the course of history and save lives by taking action to dissolve GHF," said CCR attorney Adina Marx-Arpadi. "We call on her to use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza, and to do so without delay."
CCR's request follows a call earlier this month by a group of United Nations experts for the "immediate dismantling" of GHF, as well as "holding it and its executives accountable and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the U.N. and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid."
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
"Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
"Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned," he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that "this is not a treaty" but rather "a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution."
"It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time," Lindebjerg continued. "What's more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning."
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft "nothing short of a betrayal" and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," he said. "The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving."
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they "outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U."
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft "unacceptable" and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as "ghost gear," which he described as "the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life."
"The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty," Mallos emphasized.
"On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, legislation intended to thwart President Donald Trump's attacks on the agency that administers benefits for millions of seniors and other Americans.
In a statement introducing his bill, Sanders (I-Vt.) called out not only Trump but also Elon Musk, who is the richest person on Earth and led the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until he left the administration in May.
"Since Trump has been in office, he has been working overtime with the wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, to dismantle Social Security and undermine the faith that the American people have in this vitally important program," Sanders said. "Thousands of Social Security staff have lost their jobs, seniors and people with disabilities are having a much harder time receiving the benefits they have earned, field offices have been shut down, and the 1-800 number is a mess."
"That is beyond unacceptable," the senator declared, just days before a key milestone for the law that led to the Social Security Administration (SSA). "On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve. That's precisely what this legislation will do."
As Sanders' office summarized, the bill aims to defend Americans and their benefits by:
The bill is backed by 20 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and several organizations, including Social Security Works, Alliance for Retired Americans, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Sanders introduced the bill on the same day that he joined former Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley, U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—a co-sponsor of the new legislation—for a Protect Our Checks town hall, hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent "openly bragged about plans to use a back door to privatize Social Security and hand the benefits of working families over to those folks on Wall Street," Wyden pointed out. "Trump's so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance, big consequences for American seniors and families walking on an economic tightrope."
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed and the president signed in July is expected to strip Medicaid and other key assistance, including food stamps, from millions of Americans in the next decade.
Wednesday's town hall also featured testimony from Social Security recipients, including Judith Brown, who explained that "at 37, I became disabled. It was devastating, because I was a young mother to two sons [that] are on the autism spectrum."
"When my sons needed additional medical support, I was able to get care for them because of their Social Security benefits. Without those benefits, we would have been homeless on the street," Brown continued. "Social Security has always been there for us over all these years. Right now, this administration is bent on stripping us of our benefits that we paid into during our working years... We cannot allow this to happen. Social Security must be protected and expanded. Our entire existence is on the line, and we must fight to protect Social Security."
Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Saryn Francis said that "Republican tariffs are driving up prices at the grocery store, their bills are raising the cost of healthcare and electricity, and they've even found time to hand out more tax breaks to billionaires, and now they want to mess with Social Security, and we are not going to let them take that away from us."
Francis noted that "this weekend, with over 50 events across the country, Americans are rallying in a massive effort to support Social Security and calling on congressional Republicans to stop threatening what hardworking people have earned and need to survive."