

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.
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
"I don't want to just end the war; I want to end the mindset that got us into war."
-- Barack Obama
Feb. 19, 2008
ROBERT PARRY
Parry is editor of ConsortiumNews.com, a reader-supported investigative webpage. His recent pieces include "The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates" and "Obama Risks Clinton-Era Mistakes," which states: "After a masterful campaign, Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in.' ..."
Parry's books include Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat. Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek.
ROBERT NAIMAN
Naiman is senior policy analyst and national coordinator at Just Foreign Policy. He recently wrote the piece "For Middle East Peace, Dennis Ross Is Not the Change We Seek."
STEPHEN ZUNES
Professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus, Zunes has written numerous pieces on Obama's foreign policy.
More Information
SAM HUSSEINI
Communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini said today: "'Diversity' is now often being twisted into a euphemism for Obama including Republicans in his Cabinet. While Obama repeatedly referenced his 2002 speech against the invasion of Iraq during the campaign as evidence of the flawed judgment of others, he is now reportedly considering numerous individuals who supported the invasion and/or made false claims about Iraq to fill high-level foreign policy positions.
"In fact, it looks like there will be little diversity on this critical count. Obama has already chosen Biden, who voted for war and enabled it in many ways, and Rahm Emanuel, who pushed for it. Meanwhile, 23 senators and 133 House members who voted against the war -- and countless other notable individuals who spoke out against it and the dubious claims leading to war -- are apparently not even being considered for these crucial positions."
More Information
Background: Here are some claims by named and possible officials in an Obama administration:
JOSEPH BIDEN: Voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. In his floor speech at the time he claimed: "[Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons." As then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he oversaw hearings which excluded former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and other individuals who where highly critical of claims regarding Iraq's alleged possessions of weapons of mass destruction. See: "Biden: What Kind of Foreign Policy 'Experience'?"
HILLARY CLINTON: Voted for the 2002 authorization for the Iraq war. In her 2002 floor speech, she stated that "intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." (Oct. 10, 2002)
RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Was ambassador to the United Nations toward the end of the Clinton administration. Claimed shortly after Colin Powell's speech to the UN: "It was a masterful job of diplomacy by Colin Powell and his colleagues, and it does not require a second vote to go to war. ... Saddam is the most dangerous government leader in the world today, he poses a threat to the region, he could pose a larger threat if he got weapons of mass destruction deployed, and we have a legitimate right to take action." (MSNBC, Jan. 23, 2003)
DENNIS ROSS: Mideast envoy during the Clinton administration, he made numerous appearances on Fox News Channel during the build-up for the Iraq invasion pressing for war, for example: "And the fact is that [Hussein] felt he was able to continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction, even while all of the resolutions demanding his disarmament were put into play, and you had inspectors on the ground." (Fox News Channel, Dec. 22, 2002)
JOHN KERRY: Voted for the 2002 authorization for the Iraq war. Stated at the time: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002)
SUSAN RICE: Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration. Before the invasion of Iraq, she claimed: "I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)
BILL RICHARDSON: Was ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration in the late 1990s during which time he claimed Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction: "We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX." (Feb. 11, 1998)
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
We're not to going create conditions, said the billionaire president who inherited his wealth, "so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
President Donald Trump in recent weeks has vowed to make living in the US more affordable, as polls have consistently shown voters are giving him low marks on both his handling of the economy and inflation.
However, Trump undercut this pledge during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday in which he said he wanted—despite a nationwide housing crisis—to actively make housing even more expensive than it is today.
"Existing housing, people that own their home, we're going to keep them wealthy, we're going to keep those prices up," Trump said. "We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
Trump: I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people who own their homes. You can be sure that will happen pic.twitter.com/9BupkUmXss
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 29, 2026
Trump added that his administration wanted to "make it easier to buy" a house by lowering interest rates, but then reiterated that he wanted to make houses themselves more expensive.
"There's so much talk of, 'Oh, we're going to drive housing prices down,'" Trump said. "I don't want to drive housing prices down, I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. And they can be assured that's what's going to happen."
The implications of the president's remarks were obvious to those concerned about the nation's affordable housing crisis and the struggle of working people trying to get by.
As Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director for the Campaign for New York Health, put it: "54% of Americans struggle to afford housing, and over 770,000 Americans are homeless—and Trump doesn't think those numbers are high enough."
A Fox News poll released on Wednesday found that 54% of Americans think the US is worse off now than it was a year ago, while just 31% say the country is in better shape. Just 25% of voters surveyed said they are better off now than they were a year ago, and more than 40% said that Trump's economic policies have personally hurt them.
Given Trump's already low numbers on economic performance, many observers were quick to ridicule him for his pledge to make existing houses less affordable for prospective buyers.
"Hello Donald this is your political strategist speaking," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, sarcastically wrote. "I am advising you today to please keep saying this stuff."
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) argued that Trump's views on housing prices put him well out of touch with most US voters.
"Trump only sees the world as a rich developer," she wrote in a social media post. "He has never, and will never, care about creating affordable homeownership for working and middle class Americans."
Vox writer Eric Levitz posted a not-so-subtle dig at Trump for straying so easily off message.
https://t.co/qnR9wJiaBX pic.twitter.com/zrafC50Bea
— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) January 29, 2026
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris, meanwhile, said that Trump's inability to stay on message was entirely predictable given his notorious unpredictability.
"Trump launched an affordability-focused midterm campaign for Republicans this week, traveling to Iowa to give a speech about how good his presidency has been for the cost of living," he wrote. "That's going about as well as you'd think. Here POTUS is saying he is going to keep housing prices high."
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
Tesla, the electric car company led by former Trump administration special government employee Elon Musk, released its annual financial report Thursday, showing that it doubled its yearly income in 2025 over the previous year and brought in $5.7 billion.
The company, whose CEO spent several months rooting out what he claimed was fraud and waste across the federal government, reported "precisely zero current federal income tax" on the billions it made, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
The group explained that Tesla used accelerated depreciation, reducing the value of its capital assets, while also slashing its tax bill with tax breaks for its executive stock options.
Research and development tax credits netted $352 million in additional tax savings, and the company used "net operating losses stored up from previous years to offset current year income, although it’s hard to know how much of that affects US income rather than foreign income," said ITEP.
Analyzing the financial report, ITEP found that Tesla received over $1.1 billion in federal income tax breaks, paid for by US taxpayers, last year alone—after paying 0.4% of its US profits in federal income taxes over the previous three years.
Over that time period, said ITEP, "the Elon Musk-led company reported $12.58 billion of U.S. income on which its current federal tax was just $48 million... The company reported an effective federal income tax rate of 0.4%. This is a tiny fraction of the 21% tax rate profitable corporations are supposed to pay under the law."
The most it paid in taxes over the past three years was in 2023, when Tesla paid $48 million, at the federal effective tax rate of 1.2%. That was still just a fraction of the $823 million it would have paid if it had paid the federal corporate tax rate. In 2023, the company enjoyed $775 million in tax breaks.
The company's income tax payments worldwide in 2025 totaled $1.2 billion, with more than $1 billion going to China and other foreign governments. Tesla paid $28 million to the US government, "presumably related to tax years before 2025," said ITEP.
The organization noted that the "billion-dollar tax break" enjoyed by Tesla does not appear to be illegal.
However, ITEP said, it illustrates how the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress, by passing changes to corporate tax laws in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
The organization warned last summer that special business tax breaks included in the OBBBA, including a reinstatement of bonus depreciation and new international rules, would cost the US government $165 billion in revenue in 2026.
"With Trump’s ICE murdering our neighbors, kidnapping children, and terrorizing our streets, do Senate Democrats want to be remembered as fighters or as complicit?" asked one advocate.
Every Senate Democrat, along with a small group of Republicans, voted Thursday to block a government funding package that includes $10 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, setting the stage for a fight over proposals to rein in the agency at the center of US President Donald Trump's lawless and violent mass deportation campaign.
Ahead of the 45-55 vote, progressives voiced concern that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is on the verge of caving to Republicans and relinquishing critical leverage yet again, pointing to the emerging contours of a deal between the Democratic leader and the Trump White House as the January 30 deadline to avert a government shutdown looms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has called the ongoing talks "very constructive."
The American Prospect's David Dayen reported Thursday morning that a possible framework under consideration would separate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding measure—which includes $10 billion more for ICE—from the other five appropriations bills currently before the Senate.
A short-term continuing resolution—reportedly as short as two weeks and as long as six—would keep DHS funded at last year's levels as negotiations over ICE reforms continue.
Schumer said his caucus has coalesced around a series of demands, including: a prohibition on federal immigration agents wearing masks, an end to roving ICE patrols, a body camera requirement, and use-of-force polices that align with those of local and state law enforcement.
"Body cameras and new training are not nearly enough to reverse the damage and terror that CBP and ICE have inflicted on our communities."
Dayen noted that while Schumer said Senate Democrats are "united" on ICE reforms, "these asks represent quite a bit less than other demands expressed by senators over the past week."
"Arguably many of these conditions are already part of ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] standards; the problem is a lack of enforcement," Dayen wrote. "Indeed, a new directive sent to ICE agents late Wednesday night instructed them to avoid talking to community members ('agitators,' to use their word) and to only target immigrants with criminal charges or convictions. That would encompass a good chunk of the Schumer demands."
From me: Chuck Schumer's legislative demands for DHS funding are so narrow they almost mirror what ICE/CBP have just announced in Minneapolis. Just as Republicans were conceding the need to negotiate, Democrats pre-negotiated themselves into mush.https://t.co/UoblF3XnLN pic.twitter.com/s5y40PjIjT
— David Dayen (@ddayen) January 29, 2026
Britt Jacovich, a spokesperson for MoveOn Civic Action, expressed skepticism about the Senate Democratic leadership's demands in a statement Thursday, warning that they don't go far enough.
“With Trump’s ICE murdering our neighbors, kidnapping children, and terrorizing our streets, do Senate Democrats want to be remembered as fighters or as complicit?" Jacovich asked. "Body cameras and new training are not nearly enough to reverse the damage and terror that CBP and ICE have inflicted on our communities."
Following Thursday's vote blocking the appropriations package, Jacovich said that "Senate Democrats must continue listening to the pleas from Minnesotans, parents, schoolteachers, clergy, and the majority of Americans who want ICE reined in and hold the line until we can finally unmask these reckless agents, get ICE out of our homes, and bring families back together."
Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said lawmakers' vote against the appropriations package "is a testament to the power of the people, who made their voices heard and relentlessly called on their senators to rein in ICE’s abuses."
"Public opinion is firmly against the violence, chaos, and abuse of our rights being inflicted by the Trump-Vance administration’s cruel mass deportation agenda. The American people don’t want to live in Stephen Miller’s dystopian police state," said Voigt. "We applaud the senators refusing to be complicit in these police state tactics. Now we need them to insist on real, enforceable changes to rein in ICE and Border Patrol’s increasingly dangerous immigration enforcement operations. These safeguards aren’t just common sense—they're critical to the integrity of our laws and our freedom."
Despite mounting public pressure and nationwide anger over ICE atrocities—ideal conditions for a bold reform push—progressives are wary of Schumer's ability to secure concrete changes given that, over the past year, he has engineered two Democratic surrenders in high-stakes government funding fights.
Organizer Aaron Regunberg on Thursday shared a new petition—hosted at MoveOn.org—calling on Schumer to step aside as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus.
"Chuck Schumer is poised (again) to throw away Democrats' leverage with a deal that allows ICE weeks of completely unrestrained terror in the streets, so that once public outrage has subsided and Democrats are in a much weaker position, they can (maybe) negotiate some unenforceable reforms that ICE will abide by as much as they've abided by every other law they're currently breaking," the petition reads.
"Because of the incredible organizing of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground, and the ultimate sacrifice of heroes like Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, Democrats were finally in a position with real leverage," the petition continues. "To abandon that fight now, as Schumer is doing, is downright complicity. Americans, Democrats, and Renee and Alex deserve so much better. Chuck Schumer must resign."