

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.

Doug
Gordon/Eliza Brinkmeyer (202) 822-5200
I am deeply disappointed
that President Obama is expected to announce tonight that he is escalating the
war in Afghanistan, bringing the number of U.S. troops in that country to
100,000 or more. In the midst of
a severe economic recession, we should be nation- building at home, not in
Afghanistan. According to the White House's own Budget Director,
adding an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan will cost an additional $30
billion. That is in addition to the $130 billion already budgeted for Iraq and
Afghanistan. That money should be spent where it is needed - creating jobs for
the 10% of Americans who are unemployed.
Congress will hear from the
President tonight. Every member of Congress needs to hear from their
constituents starting tomorrow. Congress needs to know that our men and women
in uniform should not be sent to die to prop up a corrupt and incompetent
government that was caught stealing the last national election. And they should
listen to the many respected military and national security experts who say
that increasing the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan will fuel the
insurgency, not end it.
The president's own National
Security Advisor has reported that there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives
in all of Afghanistan with no ability to launch attacks on either the United
States or our allies. Al Qaeda operatives could be operating in Yemen or
Somalia. Does that mean that we should be preparing for a military occupation
of those countries?
Congress must decide whether
spending $100 billion a year to have 100,000 troops chasing 100 terrorists in
Afghanistan is really in our national interest.
The argument that we need to
occupy Afghanistan in order to prevent the return of al Qaeda is an example of
what has been aptly described as a twentieth century response to a twenty-first
century problem. The fact is that al Qaeda does not need territory or large
bases to launch attacks on the United States.
They need only access to the Internet, safe houses and an ample supply
of martyrs.
The hawks inside and outside
of the administration have weighed in and the President has made his choice.
Now it is time for the American people to weigh in and for Congress to provide
a badly needed check and balance on a deeply flawed and potentially catastrophic
decision.
Win Without War is a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. We believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people--regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status--can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.
"Until we elect Democrats that understand that fighting is what we need to do," US Senate primary candidate Graham Platner said, "we're going to find ourselves in this position over and over and over again."
One public opinion researcher said Sunday that there may be one positive aspect of the capitulation of eight Senate Democratic Caucus members—none of whom will face voters in a reelection campaign next year—who joined Republicans in voting to end the government shutdown without securing concessions on the central issue of healthcare.
"The only silver lining about this completely pointless, cowardly, and tone-deaf cave is that it’ll accelerate the complete overhaul of the leadership—and god willing, direction—of the Democratic Party," said Adam Carlson of Zenith Research.
To that end, progressive organizers and lawmakers on Monday morning said that with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) having reportedly coordinated the "yes" vote from the eight senators, voters must remove the lawmakers from office at their earliest opportunity.
"We want to celebrate a Democratic Party that fights back," said the grassroots group Indivisible. "But after this latest surrender, the next step is primaries and new leadership. We get the party we demand, and we intend to demand one that fights."
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 10, 2025 at 8:11 AM
Ezra Levin, co-founder of the organization, emphasized that anger should be directed not just at the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans on a cloture vote that paved the way to reopening the government without concessions from the GOP.
The eight senators were Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, but Levin said many more centrist lawmakers were likely "in on the play."
On MSNBC Monday, Shaheen acknowledged that Schumer was "kept informed" of the eight senators' negotiations with the GOP regarding reopening the government.
"It's the same reason why they scheduled the surrender for after the election this week," Levin said. "They didn't want people pissed at Democrats right before an election."
This isn’t just about the eight Senate Democrats who surrendered. 👇
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 10, 2025 at 8:35 AM
The elections last week, along with recent polls, revealed that the Republican Party and the White House are the target of ire from US voters, with President Donald Trump himself saying the Democratic victories showed the GOP would have to take action to end the shutdown.
New Republic writer Greg Sargent said that Schumer had given up crucial leverage by caving to the GOP's demand that the shutdown end and pushing senators to support a deal that contains no restoration of Medicaid funding gutted by the Republicans earlier this year, end to Trump's recissions that cut billions of dollars in public funding, or extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.
"You've changed the story from 'GOP hurting millions of Americans to please unpopular, failing, delusional despot who's destroying his party' to 'Dems are too weak and divided in the face of Trump's strength to take a stand and protect Americans,'" said Sargent, addressing Schumer on social media.
Attorney Max Kennerly suggested that the Sunday night vote revealed more than just the party's views on the current shutdown, and said Democrats who voted "no" should receive "zero credit until they demand a change in leadership."
"The coordinated nature of this—none [of the lawmakers who voted yes] are facing voters in 2026—means that either Schumer approved it or failed in his job as Senate [minority] leader to stop it," said Kennerly.
Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2028, has topped the list of Democratic lawmakers who should face a primary challenge in recent months, following his refusal to endorse New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's campaign and his earlier capitulation to Republicans in March, when he supported a continuing resolution to keep the government funded even though to expanded Trump's control over congressional spending.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who is reportedly considering either a 2028 presidential run or a primary challenge to Schumer, suggested the Democratic leader had abandoned the fight to ensure already-high healthcare costs don't rise for people who buy insurance through the ACA marketplace.
"People want us to hold the line for a reason," she said. "This is not a matter of appealing to a base. It’s about people’s lives. Working people want leaders whose word means something."
“Chuck Schumer should step down as Senate minority leader immediately," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution. "If he secretly backed this surrender and voted ‘no’ to save face, he’s a liar. If he couldn’t keep his caucus in line, he’s inept. Either way, he’s proven incapable of leading the fight to prevent healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for millions of Americans. The country can’t afford his failed leadership any longer.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said the cave provided the latest evidence that "Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced," and that "it's time for those in the back to make it to the front and for the old guard to make way."
“You’ve had Schumer cheerleading the Iraq War, cheerleading a blank check to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, betraying us on the first shutdown," Khanna told "Breaking Points" host Krystal Ball Monday. "This is the culmination of someone who just doesn't get it, who doesn't get how much people are hurting, doesn't get where the base of this party is."
Congressman @RoKhanna goes off on Chuck Schumer. “You’ve had Schumer cheerleading the Iraq War, cheerleading a blank check to Netanyahu, betraying us on the first shutdown…and now he’s not even willing to fight!” pic.twitter.com/TQxu3gcXBr
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) November 10, 2025
In Maine, US Senate candidate Graham Platner—who is facing Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic primary to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) after Schumer pushed Mills to join the race—said millions of families had woken up to a "bleak morning" on Monday after the Democratic leader orchestrated the capitulation.
"Now, up the 20 million Americans are going to watch their healthcare premiums double, triple, and in some cases quadruple," said Platner. "Now we are on a path to watch 15 million Americans possibly lose access to healthcare insurance in the first place. This happened because Chuck Schumer failed in his job yet again, because they do not understand that when we fight, we win."
"We need to elect leaders that want to fight," he added, urging voters to call their senators and "tell them that Chuck Schumer can no longer be leader."
Chuck Schumer should step down. pic.twitter.com/6OhX2cCo9u
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) November 10, 2025
"Until we elect Democrats that understand that fighting is what we need to do," Platner said, "we're going to find ourselves in this position over and over and over again."
“Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees.”
As Starbucks workers prepare to strike amid stalled contract talks with management, more than 80 US lawmakers on Monday demanded that bosses at the world's largest coffee chain stop union busting and negotiate a fair deal for employees.
Starbucks workers—who have been in talks with company bosses led by CEO Brian Niccol for over a year—accuse management of stonewalling on key contract issues including higher pay, more hours, and an end to unfair labor practices and union busting. Last week, members of Starbucks Workers United overwhelmingly voted to authorize an unfair labor practices strike—they're calling it a "Red Cup Rebellion"—at over 650 locations if the company fails to finalize a fair contract by November 13.
Members of the Congressional Labor Caucus led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in the House sent letters to Niccol expressing their concern over management's "failure to reach a fair first contract with its baristas" and a "troubling return to union busting."
"In February 2024, Starbucks and Workers United announced a path forward to commit to negotiating a foundational framework for contracts, establishing a fair process for organizing, and resolving outstanding legal issues," the Senate letter states. "We were hopeful that the company would abide by this commitment and bargain in good faith with Starbucks workers who exercised their right to form a union."
The lawmakers continued:
As you well know Starbucks is not a poor company. Last year Starbucks made over $3.6 billion in profit and paid out nearly $5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year, Starbucks made $1.7 billion in profit and paid out over $2 billion in dividends. Last year, you made $95 million in compensation for the four months you worked in 2024, roughly 6,666 times more than what your average worker was paid for the entire year.
Despite that extravagant spending on executives and shareholders, Starbucks refuses to reach an agreement with its own workers even though you are less than one average day’s sales apart from a contract. To make matters worse, Starbucks recently began closing stores across the country and laying off hundreds of workers as part its $1 billion restructuring plan. It is clear that Starbucks has the money to reach a fair agreement with its workers.
"Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees," the letter demands.
Starbucks Workers United has already filed more than 100 charges against the coffee giant over the past 11 months, alleging unfair labor practices including reprisals against unionizing baristas. The union calls Starbucks "the biggest violator of labor law in modern history," as administrative law judges and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have found that the company has committed more than 500 violations of labor law.
Niccol—who last year became Starbucks’ fourth CEO in just two years—brought with him a history of union busting during his previous job as the head of Chipotle. Under his leadership, the fast-food chain closed a store in Augusta, Maine in 2022 after employees there tried to make it the company’s first unionized location. The workers filed a complaint at the NLRB, which ruled that the closure was an illegal act of union busting.
Workers at more than 600 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize since baristas at a store on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, New York became the first to do so in late 2021.
“Union baristas mean business and are ready to do whatever it takes to win a fair contract and end Starbucks’ unfair labor practices,” Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks Workers United spokesperson and 15-year veteran barista, said in a statement announcing last week's strike authorization. “We want Starbucks to succeed, but turning the company around and bringing customers back begins with listening to and supporting the baristas who are responsible for the Starbucks experience."
"If Starbucks keeps stonewalling, they should expect to see their business grind to a halt," Eisen added. "The ball is in Starbucks’ court.”
One policy expert warned the move was likely meant to signal to Republican election officials that if they take actions to steal future elections, "they'll be pardoned."
President Donald Trump has given a "full, complete, and unconditional” pardon to a long list of allies who conspired to help him overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Late Sunday night, Justice Department attorney Ed Martin posted a list of over 70 people who would receive pardons. Many of the figures included were named as unindicted co-conspirators or charged at the state level for their roles in the plot to knowingly spread false claims of widespread voter fraud in an attempt to push states to reject former President Joe Biden's victories in key swing states and pressure Vice President Mike Pence into stopping the certification of the election.
Among those pardoned are Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who publicly promoted baseless claims of a vast conspiracy against the president to the public, claiming that the election was stolen by a cabal of foreign infiltrators and scheming election officials. They later faced defamation lawsuits for these claims, and in legal proceedings, Giuliani conceded he made false statements about election workers, while Powell's lawyers argued that "no reasonable person" would conclude her public claims were statements of fact.
Trump also pardoned former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who acted as a facilitator between the president and state officials he attempted to bully into saying he won the election. Aside from the president himself, Meadows was the highest-ranking White House staffer on the phone call in which Trump asked Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" him enough votes to be declared the winner of the election.
Also receiving pardons were attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro. They were part of what Pence called Trump's "gaggle of crackpot lawyers," who concocted the tortured legal theory that the vice president could declare Biden's victory in swing states illegitimate and anoint Trump as the winner. Eastman privately admitted to Trump that the scheme was illegal but pressed ahead with it anyway, culminating in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, during which Trump supporters chanted, "Hang Mike Pence," and tried to stop the election results from being certified.
Also pardoned were several of the right-wing activists who signed documents falsely claiming to be electors from states that had certified the election for Biden.
Crucially, the individuals listed never faced federal criminal indictments for their election subversion attempts. However, dozens of those on the list were charged with crimes in swing states—including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada—related to the effort. The pardons mean these officials cannot be indicted at the federal level for these crimes.
Though the pardon list is broad, giving clemency to "all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting activities, participation in or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of presidential electors… as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 presidential election," it explicitly states that it "does not apply" to Trump himself, indicating that his legal team is not yet ready to test the theory that the president can pardon himself.
Still, the language Martin used in the announcement—"No MAGA left behind"—signaled the goal of creating a two-tiered justice system where those who display loyalty to Trump are immune from the law.
"The stated goal of the pardon attorney is to reward the president's political supporters," wrote Matt Gertz, a senior fellow for Media Matters for America on social media.
It coincides with Trump's broader efforts to give get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone who gives him political support. Immediately after returning to office, he gave blanket pardons to more than 1,500 people who participated in the violent effort to overturn the election on his behalf on January 6. Since then, his Justice Department has moved to fire or suspend those who brought cases against them, even for unrelated crimes.
Simply being a public Trump supporter has often been enough for people to be let off the hook for petty crimes. Florida healthcare executive Paul Walczak, who was convicted of federal tax evasion, reportedly got a pardon after his mother made a substantial donation to Trump's Super PAC. He later gave pardons to reality stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, a pair of vocal supporters, who were convicted of bank and tax fraud. He also pardoned Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins, another prominent supporter, who was convicted in a bribery scandal for accepting "cash for badges."
"Pardon attorney Ed Martin explicitly linked the pardons to his 'No MAGA left behind' mantra—tweeting the news in reply to a post that said exactly that," noted senior Lawfare editor Anna Bower. "Ironically, Martin also leads the Weaponization Working Group, which probes alleged 'politicization' of the Justice Department."
Tyson Slocum, an energy policy expert at Public Citizen, warned that these pardons send a clear message to those hoping to help Trump subvert future elections.
"Trump's pardons of Republicans who have committed crimes," he said, "is a setup to encourage state-level Republican election officials to take actions to illegally steal the election, knowing that if they succeed, they'll be pardoned."