

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.

States convening at the United Nations for a high-level meeting on
Sudan on September 24, 2010, should press Sudanese authorities to ensure
that the forthcoming referendum on southern independence is free of the
human rights violations that marred the April elections, Human Rights
Watch said today.
More than 30 nations and international organizations are expected to
attend the meeting, convened by the UN secretary-general to coincide
with the annual General Assembly meetings. Delegates are expected to
express their support for the January 2011 referendum, which will
determine whether Southern Sudan remains part of Sudan or secedes and
becomes an independent nation.
"The delegates at the Sudan meeting should do more than confirm that
the referendum will happen on time," said Rona Peligal, Africa director
at Human Rights Watch. "This is also a prime opportunity for them to
insist on better human rights conditions in Sudan."
The April elections and the upcoming referendum for southern
independence are milestones in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement,
which ended 22 years of civil war in which an estimated 2 million people
lost their lives.
Human Rights Watch remains concerned about impunity for human rights
violations by security forces across Sudan, restrictions on civil and
political rights, and the treatment of minority groups throughout Sudan.
The two parties to the peace agreement - the ruling National Congress
Party (NCP) and the southern ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement
(SPLM) - should state publicly that they will not expel each other's
minorities in the event of secession, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates to the September 24 UN meeting should also address the deteriorating situation in Darfur.
"Focus on the southern referendum should not shift attention away
from the ongoing crises in Darfur," Peligal said. "The nations concerned
about the situation in Sudan need to press Khartoum now to end impunity
for ongoing human rights violations in Darfur."
Election-Related Violations
As Human Rights Watch has extensively documented, the national elections in April 2010
were deeply flawed. They were marred by human rights violations,
including restrictions on free speech and assembly, particularly in
northern Sudan. The elections also occasioned widespread intimidation,
arbitrary arrests, and physical violence against election monitors and
opponents of the ruling parties by Sudanese security forces across the
country.
In the period following the elections, the human rights situation
deteriorated further as the ruling party, using the National
Intelligence and Security Services, cracked down on opponents,
activists, and journalists in Khartoum and northern states. Human Rights
Watch documented additional cases of arbitrary arrests of activists in
August and September.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on the Sudanese national
government to enact key human rights reforms required under the peace
agreement, such as reforming the repressive national security apparatus.
In Southern Sudan, election-related disputes sparked clashes between
the southern government army, the SPLM, and aggrieved candidates and
other opponents of the southern ruling party. In Jonglei state, for
example, General George Athor, who unsuccessfully ran for governor,
clashed with the southern army on multiple occasions. As of September,
large numbers of the southern army's soldiers were still deployed in
northern Jonglei state where civilians continue to report rape and other
abuses. Soldiers have also conducted violent operations against armed
groups aligned to opponents of the southern ruling party in Upper Nile
state, resulting in human rights violations there.
Both national and Southern Sudanese authorities should hold their
security forces accountable for human rights violations that occurred
during and after the elections, Human Rights Watch said.
Civil and Political Rights Threatened
Although the head of the national security service in early August
lifted pre-print censorship, other restrictions on political expression
remain in place. During research in Sudan in August, Human Rights Watch
found that both in the northern states, where authorities support the
continued unity of Sudan, and in Southern Sudan, where authorities
support southern secession, journalists and civil society are not free
to speak openly about any opposition to the prevailing sentiment.
Human Rights Watch also found increased anxiety over the citizenship
rights of southerners living in Khartoum and elsewhere in northern
states. Southerners living throughout Sudan will be eligible to vote in
the referendum. The vast majority of them live in Southern Sudan, but an
estimated 1.5 million live in Khartoum and other northern towns, many
in settlements for displaced persons.
In recent months, officials in the northern ruling party have
publicly threatened that southerners may not be able to stay in the
north in the event of a secession vote. Both southerners in the north
and northerners living in Southern Sudan told Human Rights Watch that
they feared retaliation, even expulsion, if secession were approved.
International standards protect people from arbitrary or
discriminatory removal or deprivation of their nationality. The Sudanese
authorities should publicly pledge that no one will be at risk of
statelessness, or risk losing enjoyment of other basic rights, as a
result of the outcome of the referendum.
"The UN meeting provides a perfect opportunity for the parties to
declare there will be no expulsions of southerners from the north, or
northerners from the south," Peligal said.
Impasse at Abyei
Delegates at the UN meeting this week should also press the two parties
to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to make it an urgent priority to
resolve the political impasse over Abyei, the oil-rich area along the
north-south border where northern and southern forces clashed in 2008. The issue remains a key flashpoint for further conflict and human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
"The situation in Abyei could easily deteriorate and lead to more
conflict without a concerted effort to protect civilians and defuse
tensions on the ground," Peligal said.
Under the peace agreement, the area is to hold its own parallel
referendum in January 2011 to decide whether it will belong to the north
or south, but the parties have made no progress in agreeing on the
arrangements for this vote or in taking steps to resolve differences
between local populations and protect their rights, as Human Rights
Watch documented in August.
The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which has a mandate to
protect civilians, should increase its patrols throughout Abyei and
other key volatile areas along the north-south border, and Sudanese
authorities should ensure peacekeepers' access to these areas, Human
Rights Watch said.
Abuses by Soldiers in Southern Sudan
The Sudanese government and international supporters should not ignore
human rights violations by security forces in Southern Sudan, where
election-related grievances have provoked human rights violations by the
southern government's soldiers in the months following the April vote,
Human Rights Watch said.
In northern Jonglei and Upper Nile states, for example, Human Rights
Watch documented killings and rapes committed by these soldiers in June
and July. The soldiers targeted civilians whom they accused of
supporting "renegade" commanders and local militia groups who opposed
the southern ruling party.
In Upper Nile state, the governing party's troops conducted
particularly violent operations against a militia group allegedly linked
to SPLM-DC, a breakaway political party led by Lam Akol. In one
village, a 60-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers had
rounded up her son and three friends, tied their hands behind their
backs, and shot them dead.
"These incidents underscore the urgent need for the southern
government to instruct soldiers on their human rights obligations and to
hold them accountable for all violations," Peligal said.
Human Rights Watch also urged human rights personnel for the UN
mission to monitor and report on these abuses and to press the southern
armed force to strengthen its accountability mechanisms before the
referendum. International donors engaged in reforming the security
sector in Southern Sudan should include accountability and human rights
in their programs.
The Government of Southern Sudan has, appropriately, put the southern
police forces in charge of referendum security, rather than soldiers
who have been responsible for abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
Protect Civilians and Insist on Justice for Crimes in Darfur
Human Rights Watch also urged the international delegates to ensure
stronger protection of civilians from ongoing violence and rights abuses
in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates should insist that those wanted by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide allegedly committed in Darfur appear in The Hague to face the
charges against them. President Omar al-Bashir; Ahmed Haroun, the
country's former minister for humanitarian affairs and current governor
of Southern Kordofan state; and Ali Kosheib, a "Janjaweed" militia
leader whose real name is Ali Mohammed Ali, are all subject to arrest
warrants by the ICC.
The situation in Darfur has deteriorated in recent months, and the Sudanese government continues to carry out armed attacks on rebel factions and civilians.
In early September, for example, armed militias (some wearing
military uniforms) on camels and horses and in vehicles mounted with
guns killed 37 people in an attack on a market in North Darfur. The
UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID), which is
charged with protecting civilians and has a base 15 kilometers away at
Tawila, turned back in its first effort to reach the site on the advice
of a pro-government armed group and did not reach the market until
nearly a week after the attack.
The incident underscores the need for the peacekeeping operations to
interpret its protection mandate robustly and to insist on immediate
access to areas where violations occur, Human Rights Watch said.
Violence has also increased inside camps for people who have been
displaced by the conflict. At Kalma camp in South Darfur and at Hamadiya
camp in West Darfur, tensions in July between supporters and opponents
of peace talks, known as the Doha peace process, led to violence,
killing 11 people.
The impact of the fighting between armed groups in Darfur and of
government attacks on civilians has not been fully documented, in part
because the government and rebels have repeatedly denied peacekeepers
and humanitarian aid groups access to affected areas. Following violence
in Kalma camp, for example, the Sudanese government blocked
humanitarian organizations from the camp for several weeks.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly urged leaders of the peacekeeping
operation to increase human rights monitoring and public reporting and,
where necessary, issue statements pressing Sudanese authorities to end
specific abuses.
In September, the Sudanese government endorsed a new security and
development strategy for Darfur, which the peacekeepers have publicly
supported. The plan envisions the return of displaced people to their
homes, but it does not contain clear measures to ensure their returns
are voluntary, or that militias are disarmed and soldiers held
accountable, Human Rights Watch said.
"Darfur cannot be developed unless there is real security," Peligal
said. "The international actors need to press the Sudanese government to
immediately end attacks on civilians, let humanitarian groups and
peacekeepers operate effectively, and send people home only when they
want. The government also needs to bring to justice those who have
committed abuses in Darfur, including by cooperating with the
International Criminal Court."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Affordability was top of mind for voters last night, and within that, healthcare is an enormous driver."
"WHO WANTS MEDICARE FOR ALL?"
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked that question, in all caps, on social media late Tuesday as he won reelection and joined others from his party in trouncing President Donald Trump's Republicans across the country, securing majorities in both chambers of Congress thanks to voters frustrated by an affordability crisis under a GOP trifecta.
Although some races haven't yet been called, and key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New Yorker likely to become the next speaker, don't support shifting the United States to a universal public healthcare system, the Democratic "tsunami" on Tuesday still revived hope that the results could help the fight for Medicare for All.
Democrats reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives after Trump and congressional Republicans last year used their budget package, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to slash Medicaid spending and allow Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire—which has already led to millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage.
The wave of Democratic wins also came nearly five months after a coalition of over 325 organizations argued that "now is the time to organize" for Medicare for All, given that "we may face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate on healthcare in 2029."
While—as the coalition suggested—passing federal Medicare for All legislation would likely require not only a Democrat-controlled Congress but also replacing Trump with a progressive president in 2028, the midterm results are still being seen by voters and elected officials alike as "a mandate to deliver big change" over the next two years.
"Wins by progressive candidates will jumpstart a national discussion of Medicare for All," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "Medicare for All isn't going to pass in the next two years. But, newly prominent advocates will have a platform to make sure it's part [of] the discussion, carrying through to the 2028 primaries."
Even without support from party leaders and the White House, Democrats may still push for congressional hearings or even votes on single-payer policies before the 2028 elections.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, told Punchbowl News this week that she wants to mark up the bill next year and fight for a vote on the floor: "I want to make sure we have the requisite number of co-sponsors, and I’m hoping that our leadership is part of helping to make that happen."
As Forbes reported:
Several Democrats who won seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives made Medicare for All or a public option key parts of their winning campaigns. Such ideas will likely get more airtime now that Democrats control both houses of Congress in a rebuke of Trump administration policies that have slashed healthcare spending.
Exactly what form a "public option" would take [is] unclear, but such a choice being offered to Americans alongside private and existing health insurance coverage would seem more achievable than replacing the existing health insurance system with Medicare for All.
The American Prospect pointed out that Medicare for All supporters who emerged victorious on Tuesday include Rep.-elects Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 7th, 10th, and 13th districts, along with "Democratic Georgia state Rep. Dr. Jasmine Clark, who won more than 81% of the vote to represent Georgia's 13th District; Democrat Melat Kiros, who beat nearly 30-year incumbent Republican US Rep. Diana DeGette to represent Colorado's 1st District; and Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George, who will be Washington, DC’s first new mayor in more than a decade."
Among the victors in the US Senate were Democrats Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Troy Jackson of Maine, also both vocal backers of Medicare for All. Jayapal highlighted that "Abdul was up against millions of dollars in dark money from Republican donors—and today Michigan voters sent a clear message that their state and their votes are not for sale."
"Abdul ran a strong campaign on Medicare for All, refused corporate [political action committee] money, and stayed focused on working families from day one to Election Day," she added. "I am so proud to have stood with him throughout his campaign and I cannot wait to work with him in Washington to deliver for you."
From leading a border blockade to protect loggers' wages, to the state legislature and President of the Maine Senate, Troy has spent his life fighting for working Mainers. We look forward to organizing with Sen.-elect Jackson to pass Medicare For All and secure a federal right to abortion.
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 4, 2026 at 1:01 AM
The leading voice for Medicare for All in the upper chamber, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), worked to elect both El-Sayed and Jackson, as well as several leftist House candidates who won. He wrote on social media Wednesday that "last night saw some of the greatest progressive victories in modern American history. All across the country, in rural and urban areas, Americans said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class."
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is expected to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when the party takes over in January, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another Medicare for All backer, will likely lead the Finance Committee, as STAT Washington correspondent John Wilkerson noted Wednesday—predicting that "the wins that Democrats amassed on Tuesday night could breathe life into efforts to create some type of a single-payer system."
Yale University researchers estimated in August that Sanders' related legislative proposal could save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion annually. In response to those findings, the senator said that "at a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' we need Medicare for All now more than ever."
A KFF survey released last month found that 66% of Americans—including 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—support Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal.
Sharing KFF data on how the average US family's health insurance premium has soared over the past quarter-century, The Tennessee Holler declared on social media Wednesday: "Medicare for All. Now. We can't afford not to do it. It isn't radical to support it. It's radical to oppose it."
"Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media said.
Tuesday's historic rebuke of President Donald Trump's policies and party was also a major victory for the climate and environment, campaigners said, as Democratic control of Congress gives lawmakers a chance to check the president's pro-pollution and pro-extinction agenda.
Up and down the ballot, voters elected candidates who champion climate action and holding wealthy polluters accountable while rejecting data centers and tech and fossil-fuel spending blitzes.
"Voters just overwhelmingly repudiated the most anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel administration in US history," Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams. "This was a historic climate victory in disguise. Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda."
"Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
"Last night’s election opens the door for plenty more states to pass climate legislation, like climate superfund bills, and block industry attempts to hold back clean energy or immunize themselves from climate damages," Henn said.
While climate and the environment took a backseat in election rhetoric and reporting to issues like affordability and corruption, many winning candidates who champion reducing inequality and challenging corporate greed—such as Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and Reps.-elect Chris Rabb (D-Pa.), Claire Valdez (D-NY), and Melat Kiros (D-Colo.)—also back policies such as a Green New Deal and holding polluting industries accountable. Also in Michigan, Democratic Rep.-elect Will Lawrence was a co-founder of the climate focused Sunrise Movement.
"Ardent advocates of climate and environmental action and justice who loudly rejected Trump and the Republican attack on both are now heading to and returning back to Congress and to offices across the nation," environmental investigative journalist Antonia Juhasz wrote on social media. "It’s officially a Green Wave too."
Kidus Girma, Sunrise Movement's campaign director, told Common Dreams that on Tuesday, "Young people proved that progressive ideas like the Green New Deal are just as popular in central Michigan as they are in Brooklyn."
"Working people in America no matter where they live want the same thing—good green jobs, a pause on data centers, and a system that works for people, not billionaires," Girma said. "Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
SUNRISE CO-FOUNDER @WeWill2026 IS HEADED TO CONGRESS!!!A climate leader just unseated a Republican by running against data centers. Green New Deal, here we come. https://t.co/k2r87awJZg
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) November 4, 2026
Climate advocates pointed out that issues such as the high price of gas due to Trump's illegal war on Iran are intimately connected with the dependence on a fossil fuel industry that is empowered to profit from energy crises.
"Climate change may not have dominated the election, but the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels certainly did," said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director at Fossil Free Media and spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, in a statement. "Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington."
Further, the backlash against the AI data centers build-out, reflected in massive wins for data centers moratoriums and anti-data center candidates, is also a major climate victory, as the Sierra Club projects that the use of fossil fuels to power new data centers will increase power sector emissions by 42% by 2030 when compared with 2025 levels, undoing 15 years of climate progress in electricity generation.
"Millions of voters cast their ballots in frustration over data centers, corporate greed, and Trump’s egregious giveaways to fossil fuel CEOs and other industry cronies," Brett Hartl, the national political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said in a statement.
Elizabeth Bast, executive director at Oil Change Action, said in a statement that "voters send a clear message: They’re fed up with Trump’s agenda of fossil fuel giveaways, illegal and immoral wars, and unchecked data center expansion that makes their lives more expensive while lining the pockets of Big Oil and Big Tech,"
Bast continued: "Affordability and accountability were voters’ top concerns this election cycle. Both are inseparable from fossil fuel dependence. Americans have spent an additional $101 billion on gas since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, highlighting the dangers of fossil fuel reliance. Meanwhile, Trump increased his wealth by tens of millions through stock trades made profitable by his war—a blatant example of this administration’s corruption."
One major theme of the midterms was the ability of the "many" to beat the "money," as El-Sayed put it in his victory speech. Big spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Big Tech oligarchs including Elon Musk failed to force their preferred candidates over the finish line.
This was equally true of Big Oil, as Emily Atklin detailed in a race-by-race breakdown for Heated. On the national level, Chevron, Koch, Energy Transfer, and the American Petroleum Institute gave a combined $25 million to keep Republicans in charge of Congress, only to see the Democrats retake both the House and Senate. Chevron also gave $200,000 each to losing GOP candidates Ken Paxton in Texas and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.
Lawrence, the Sunrise Movement alum, triumphed over the combined forces of Musk and other GOP insiders in what was the nation's most expensive House race.
"Lawrence mobilized voters and volunteers by his long-standing commitment to putting working-class families over billionaire polluters and data center developers. His campaign estimates it knocked more doors than any other House Democratic race," Oil Change's Bast said.
Mya Lega, a Lawrence campaign spokesperson, told Common Dreams: “Michiganders want our land, air, and water protected from AI data centers, polluters, and corporate oligarchs. Will Lawrence built his career on standing up to them. In the House, he’ll be a leading voice against the Trump administration’s rollbacks on environmental protections and handouts to corporations and oligarchs.”
The victory of people over money was true of more local races as well, as in Georgia where voters flipped the Georgia Public Service Commission to Democratic control despite fossil fuel spending on behalf of Republican candidates, while voters in Colorado rejected an industry-backed attempt to enshrine a right to use or sell natural gas in the state constitution.
This is...a much bigger deal than you might think. So many thanks to everyone at @thirdactorg.bsky.social and elsewhere who fought so hard for this winthecurrentga.org/2026/11/03/d...
[image or embed]
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben.bsky.social) November 4, 2026 at 8:19 AM
"Fossil fuel money is one of the most powerful forces in American politics. It is the biggest obstacle we face in preserving a livable climate for everyone on Earth," Atkin wrote. "But it is not invincible. Not even close."
Further, the appetite for getting money out of politics was reflected in votes on energy and climate issues. In Michigan, voters approved Proposition 2 to bar publicly regulated utilities from giving funds to state and local candidates. And nationwide, more than 65 congressional candidates who had signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge won their races.
“Big Oil and Big Tech have poured enormous amounts of money into this election to protect their power and profits," Bast of Oil Change wrote. "Across the country, candidates who refuse fossil fuel money have won elections, proving that Big Oil's money is no match for the power of organized communities."
Beyond climate and energy concerns, Defenders of Wildlife celebrated Tuesday's results as a check on Trump's gutting of protections public lands and endangered species.
“For those of us working to protect America's wildlife and wild places, this is a moment of renewed hope and possibility," the group's president and CEO, Andrew Bowman, said in a statement. “Over the past two years, we have faced extraordinary challenges, including relentless efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, roll back protections for public lands, and undermine decades of conservation progress."
Bowman continued: "A new Congress offers opportunities to defend bedrock environmental laws, strengthen congressional oversight, and advance conservation priorities that have faced significant political headwinds. It also creates new possibilities for bipartisan cooperation around something we know transcends political divisions: America's shared commitment to wildlife and our natural heritage."
Following Tuesday's win, climate and environmental campaigners urged victorious candidates to consider their election as a mandate to protect public health and the environment and to hold polluters accountable for harm and corruption.
They also urged current members of Congress to reject the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), a bill that advocates argue would gut current regulations to clear the way for more fossil fuel and data centers projects.
“The midterm results are a rallying cry for Democrats to use their newfound power to rein in Trump. Democrats must not cut deals in the lame duck that bolster Trump and give Republicans wins but instead lay the foundation to end Trump’s corrupt anti-environmental crusade for good," the Center for Biological Diversity's Hartl said.
“Voters gave Democrats control of Congress to advance policies that uplift communities, not offer sweetheart giveaways to corporate polluters and data centers, like the Senate permitting reform bill,” Hartl continued. “Trump has done so much damage to our public lands, wildlife habitats, and clean air and water protections in the last two years. Democrats must take ownership of their new mandate right now and start changing the conversation in Congress.”
"For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel warned: "In the coming weeks this administration and current Congress will treat the lame-duck session like a fire sale on essential environmental and health protections and the rights of tribal governments. It is critical we stop them before they do even more damage to our air, water, land, sacred places, and the health of our communities."
She argued that this started with rejecting BAAJA: "This legislation that the Senate will likely consider next week would permanently undercut the ability of communities to say no to dangerous oil, gas, and mining projects in their backyards."
Bast of Oil Change agreed, saying: "Democrats have a clear mandate to rein in Big Oil and Big Tech. They must seize the opportunity to do so, first by rejecting the currently proposed permitting deal... and then by taxing Big Oil’s windfall profits in the incoming Congress."
The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), an organization made up of more than 800 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, called on the new Congress to hold Trump's EPA to account for failing in its mission to protect people and the environment from pollution and to restore it to its prior function and scientific rigor.
“Americans understand that when corporations aren't held accountable for their pollution, ordinary families end up paying the price,” EPN's senior director of public affairs, Marc Boom, said in a statement. “Our polling shows that 81% of registered voters surveyed believe the costs of pollution are being shifted onto families. The incoming Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to hold EPA and the rest of the federal government accountable and make sure they're doing their jobs to protect public health and leave families safer, not sicker.”
Others urged the new Congress to take the opportunity to hold Big Oil accountable as well.
So when are we scheduling the live hearings with Big Oil CEOs?
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) November 4, 2026
"Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington," DiPaola said in a statement. "Voters made clear they're fed up with corporate greed and politicians who put wealthy donors ahead of working families. Now Democrats have a chance to prove they're serious about changing that. For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
She continued: "We want to see oil executives hauled before Congress to answer for their profiteering and political influence. We want a windfall profits tax that puts money back in working people's pockets, climate superfund laws that make polluters pay for the damage they've caused, and an end to Big Oil's push for special legal immunity. Democrats have won the power to take on one of the wealthiest and most politically connected industries in America, and we expect them to use it."
Aaron Regunberg, who directs Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, agreed.
"Democrats across the country ran on a pledge to lower the costs of essentials and take on corporate corruption. They just won a massive mandate to do just that. And you can't achieve those goals without fighting for Big Oil accountability," he told Common Dreams.
He continued: "Democrats have an opportunity to crack down on fossil fuel profiteering and haul Big Oil CEOs in to investigate their corrupt dealings with Trump. It would be a huge mistake to not seize this huge opportunity."
"We are going to end the war."
Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday indicated that his party will defund President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran when it takes over as the majority next year.
While speaking with reporters, Schumer (D-NY) was asked how Democrats planned to end the war, which Trump launched without congressional authorization in February.
"We are going to end the war," said Schumer. "We already have some Republicans who have joined us in ending the war. And the Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people."
Q: How are Democrats going to end the war?SCHUMER: The Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people https://t.co/UZdb601W7h
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 4, 2026
Democrats on Tuesday secured majorities in the US House of Representatives and the Senate, and Democrats will have at least 54 members in the congressional upper chamber.
Earlier this year, four Republicans in the Senate—Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—voted with the vast majority of Democrats to pass a war powers resolution aimed at compelling Trump to end the Iran War.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure.
While Cassidy and Collins will leave office at the end of this year, a full majority in both chambers of Congress will enable Democrats to go beyond passing war powers resolutions and cut off funding for the US Department of Defense until Trump agrees to wind down the conflict.
Schumer's remarks on defunding the war came shortly after Vice President JD Vance posted a message on social media acknowledging that voter dissatisfaction with the war, and the subsequent rise in energy prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, were the major reasons for Republicans' defeat.
"The reason we lost is the war," Vance wrote. "The president himself said so last night. If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost."
Vance's statement also earned the endorsement of Donald Trump Jr., who may or may not have understood that it was an implicit criticism of his father's decision-making.
"Every word of this," the president's eldest son—who, along with Vance, may run for the White House in 2028—wrote in response to the vice president.
"If you spend enough on ads, you really can get people to vote against their own interests," lamented one observer.
Proposition 40, the California proposal for a one-time 5% tax on the state's billionaires, appeared headed for defeat Wednesday after a spending blitz exceeding $300 million by some of the state's wealthiest residents helped turn a potentially landmark effort to make plutocrats pay their fare share into one of the most expensive ballot fights in state history.
With around 60% of expected votes counted, Prop 40—also known as the California Billionaire Tax—was losing by a 56% to 44% margin, according to CalMatters and The Associated Press, which had not yet projected the final outcome due to the significant number of uncounted ballots.
The measure, which is sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of California residents and trusts worth more than $1 billion. Affecting approximately 200 billionaires, Prop 40 would generate tens of billions of dollars to help fund healthcare, food assistance, and public education programs facing funding pressures, including cuts resulting from President Donald Trump's attacks on Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other social safety net lifelines.
Polling showed a majority of California voters—55%—supporting Prop 40 last December, buoyed by the backing of prominent national figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
In early 2026, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other tech billionaires began pouring money into efforts to oppose the initiative and support competing ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, which were specifically designed to undermine or nullify Prop 40.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom also came out against Prop 40. Critics accused the potential 2028 presidential contender of trying to bamboozle voters with a plan for a national billionaire income tax, knowing that very rich people actually have relatively little income when compared with their investments and other assets that would be subject to taxation under Prop 40.
By June, Prop 40 was polling under 50%. By October, with a deluge of anti-Prop 40 ads flooding the airwaves and internet, support barely topped 40%.
According to CalMatters, billionaires and business interests spent $316.7 million on the campaign against Prop 40, including spending on Props 41 and 42. Most of that money was raised by Building a Better California, a political action committee funded by prominent tech executives, venture capitalists, and business leaders.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, opponents of Prop 40 outspent supporters of the measure by a staggering 250: 1 margin.
"We won’t need much analysis to identify what swayed voters," Yousef Baig wrote for CalMatters. "The playbook for defeating the tax was simple: Stoke economic fears and confuse Californians."
Baig continued:
Prop 40’s authors may have even doomed their own campaign with an amendment provision that opponents seized on. If a supermajority—two-thirds of the Legislature—wanted to retool the tax, they could, so long as “the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.” Opponents created ads proclaiming politicians would use this clause to come after our retirement accounts.
It lit up social media. Some Californians are so cynical that they figured 7 out of 10 state lawmakers would vote to extend a billionaire tax to people with fewer zeros and commas invested. It also made one of Brin’s countermeasures, Proposition 42, an easy sell. It would bar taxes on personal property and its passage would make it almost impossible to enact a similar tax in the future. It was ahead in the count Wednesday morning.
"If there is a glimmer of hope, it is that Brin and other billionaires stepped into the sunshine," Baig said. "The record spending and attack ads and political gamesmanship was done out in the open. Many Californians took notice, whether they backed Prop 40 or not."
"The state’s billionaires may have avoided this wealth tax," he added, "but voters won’t forget how some of the richest people on the planet behaved when fairness was on the ballot."
"Mississippi has never been a lost cause," said Colom, who could be the state's first Black senator since Reconstruction. "We've been a betrayed cause."
Scott Colom is on the verge of a historic upset in Mississippi, where he could become the state's first Democrat elected to the US Senate in more than four decades.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Decision Desk HQ showed Colom, a Black prosecutor and criminal justice reform advocate, holding a razor-thin margin of 1,864 votes over Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith with more than 95% of ballots counted.
Even on a night when Democrats clobbered the GOP up and down the map and won decisively in states as red as Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, and Iowa, very few analysts believed Mississippi—where President Donald Trump won by nearly 23 points in 2024—would be competitive, let alone a nail-biter that dragged into the next day.
But NBC election analyst Steve Kornacki explained Wednesday morning that with thousands of votes left to count in overwhelmingly Democratic Hinds County, “Colom could absolutely win this.”
In a 5-4 decision that now looms large, the US Supreme Court shot down Republican efforts to stop the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day that arrive afterward. Those ballots, which can continue arriving until November 10, may ultimately decide the election.
Even if Colom falls short, his strong showing was evidence of what the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, described as "historic voter turnout" in Black communities, in response to Republicans' attack on the Voting Rights Act.
Following the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision earlier this year, several GOP-controlled states, including those in the Deep South, moved to redraw congressional and state legislative districts in ways that voting rights advocates warned would dilute Black voting power.
On the campaign trail, Colom described Callais as "a threat to our democracy" and said Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, who proposed legislative maps that would have drawn Black lawmakers out of their districts, was seeking to stop Black voters from "being able to pick leaders they want."
When the court’s conservatives kneecapped the Voting Rights Act, they inspired a fierce backlash among Black voters across the South," explained reporter Jim Saksa in an analysis for Democracy Docket. "Massive Black turnout helped Democrats coast to victory in Georgia and made the Senate races in Mississippi and Louisiana the tightest seen in decades."
Voter turnout in Mississippi is on pace to be about 40% higher than in the last midterm election in 2022. In majority-Black Hinds County, which contains Jackson, unofficial results showed nearly 76,500 votes for the two leading US Senate candidates alone, about 44% more than the total number of ballots cast four years ago.
"The story of this election is not just about who won," said Dominik Whitehead, chief of field for the NAACP. "It's about the Black wave of voters who understood what was at stake and made their voices heard."

Colom didn’t have to water down his platform much to achieve tremendous gains, even in a deep-red state. As political strategist Paul Hilder explained, he “ran on a ‘commonsense’ economic populist platform aimed at daily life: gas, groceries, healthcare, and closing hospitals, plus Medicaid expansion.”
In the nation’s poorest state, where nearly 1 in 5 residents rely on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, this message was potent. It was especially effective against Hyde-Smith, who has comfortably won her previous elections and was relentlessly criticized for dismissing voters’ concerns about high prices.
For example, in DeSoto County, which Trump carried by 24 points in 2024, Colom led Hyde-Smith by more than six points in early returns.
"[Colom] won many switchers, and the Republican vote collapsed," Hilder said. "Swing voters are more volatile than ever, especially when they’re economically hard-pressed. They respond to common sense, and they’ve decided Trump and the Republicans are not on their side."
Mississippi has not elected a Democrat to the US Senate since Sen. John C. Stennis, a conservative segregationist, won his seventh term in 1982. And although it has the highest proportion of Black residents of any US state, Mississippi has not sent a Black senator to Washington since Reconstruction, when Republican Blanche K. Bruce, who was born into slavery, was elected by the state Legislature.
Colom told NPR last week he’s always believed change was possible and that it has failed to materialize only because of neglect by national Democrats, who have long written the state off as unwinnable.
"The reality is, Mississippi has never been a lost cause," he said. "We've been a betrayed cause."
"He cultivated a whole generation of young leaders through the movement he spawned who are now winning seats everywhere."
The movement that led to at least 18 progressive victories in congressional races and 42 left-wing winners down-ballot "started with a man with 1% vote and three people at his announcement" of his presidential bid in 2015, said one organizer Tuesday night as Democrats won control of the US Senate and House, a majority of governorships, and made major gains in state legislatures.
"Bernie made the path" for progressive politicians to win crucial elections, said a labor organizer based in San Francisco, referring to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "This wave has been a long time coming."
She was one of several observers who drew the connection from Sanders' unsuccessful but mobilizing presidential runs in 2016 and 2020, and his relentless centering of economic justice in his campaigns and legislative work, to the wave of victories Tuesday night by outspoken economic populists including Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and Troy Jackson (D-Maine) and Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (D-Colo.), Donavan McKinney (D-Mich.), and Rebecca Cooke (D-Wis.).
"What a night for the movement Bernie has been building for decades," said Jeremy Slevin, Sanders' senior adviser and communications director, listing dozens of the candidates who were endorsed by the senator and ran on platforms demanding Medicare for All, housing justice, civil rights, and an end to the influence of powerful corporations on US politics.
RoseAnn DeMoro, a labor organizer and former executive director of National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association, recalled how, as her organization campaigned for Sanders in 2016 and 2020, "we educated, agitated, organized, gained the most principled allies, incredible people, like Abdul El-Sayed."
"And last night—we won!" said DeMoro.
She added: "Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for working your heart out to change this country. Your 'long game' should be very gratifying today."
A decade after he first ran for president, the proposals Sanders pushed in 2016 have been embraced by large majorities of Democratic voters, and even Americans across the political spectrum. His signature proposal, Medicare for All, dismissed then by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as something that would "never, ever come to pass," is supported by 66% of US adults, according to a KFF poll taken last month, with 52% of respondents still supporting the idea if it would "eliminate private health insurance companies."
The US House held its first-ever hearings on Medicare for All in 2019, and some of the Democratic Party's most popular members—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), elected in 2018, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, elected in 2025—are outspoken proponents of the plan.
On Tuesday night, said Josh Orton of Demand Justice, "across the country, in red states and blue, Democratic candidates adopted the fight Bernie led for years: for the people against the powerful. You lead that fight and welcome everyone to join you, you win."
Even candidates who did not campaign alongside Sanders, such as Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa in Texas, put forward platforms that showed clear signs of Sanders' influence on US politics. Hinojosa told The New York Times that "the one fight in this country is about economic power" as she explained why she identifies as a "populist" rather than a progressive, and Talarico spoke out against "the billionaires who own the social media platforms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens."
"The people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and their power," Talarico said, suggesting a call for the working-class solidarity Sanders has urged at his Fighting Oligarchy rallies.
Will Steakin of Politico said he was "not sure any Democratic surrogate campaigned as hard as Sanders this cycle," counting 58 rallies since the Fighting Oligarchy Tour, attended by 340,000 people, and "20 rallies in October alone."
Posting a montage of the rallies, set to David Bowie's "Starman," the senator himself said that Americans "across the country, in rural and urban areas," had "said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class."
Last night saw some of the greatest progressive victories in modern American history. All across the country, in rural and urban areas, Americans said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class.Congratulations to the following candidates:U.S. SENATEAbdul El-Sayed (MI)Peggy Flanagan (MN)Troy Jackson (ME)U.S. HOUSEBob Brooks (PA-7)Rebecca Cooke (WI-3)Sam Forstag (MT-1)Adam Hamawy (NJ-12)Melat Kiros (CO-1)Brad Lander (NY-10)Will Lawrence (MI-7)Donavan McKinney (MI-13)Brian Poindexter (OH-7)Analilia Mejía (NJ-11)Claire Valdez (NY-07)Randy Villegas (CA-22)Aisha Wahab (CA-14)
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 4, 2026
"I am so happy that Bernie Sanders is with us today to be able to see the fruits of his labor. He cultivated a whole generation of young leaders through the movement he spawned who are now winning seats everywhere," historian Asad Dandia said of the 85-year-old senator. "Thank you, Bernie."
"From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
Progressive lawmakers and advocacy organizations said Wednesday in the aftermath of Democrats' historic midterm victory that the party has a mandate to use its majorities in the US House and Senate to advance an ambitious legislative agenda and deliver the kind of transformative change that voters demanded at ballot boxes across the country.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the midterm results "a mandate to deliver big change," emphasizing that the real work has just begun.
"Deliver on the big change people are demanding," Casar wrote in a message to his fellow Democrats. "End the war. Stop ICE’s reign of terror. Root out corruption. Raise wages. Stop price gouging. Get money out of politics. Strengthen unions."
"No complacency," he added.
Top Democrats signaled in the immediate aftermath of the party's midterm rout of President Donald Trump's Republican Party that they would not hesitate to begin investigating alleged corruption—a major issue for voters, according to exit polls—and other wrongdoing by the White House and its allies.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is in line to become speaker in the new Congress, said Wednesday that his caucus would also work to "make significant and decisive progress on addressing the affordability crisis"—though legislative efforts could by stymied by Trump's veto power.
Progressives—bouyed by victories in key races across the country—implored Democrats to use every bit of power that voters gave them to pursue bold change and lay the groundwork for retaking the White House in 2028, warning against a return to the status quo politics that delivered the country into the grasp of Trump and the GOP in the first place.
"Use every committee, hearing, and budget negotiation. Follow the contracts and conflicts of interest. Put executives and administration officials under oath," Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the advocacy group Our Revolution, said in a statement Wednesday. "Fight for concrete gains and make Trump answer for what he blocks. We know we won’t win everything at once. People need to see Democrats using every bit of power they have to fight for them."
Geevarghese also called on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to step aside as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, arguing that the fight ahead "requires leadership ready to meet the moment."
"The blue wave was powered by a progressive wave. We are the center of gravity in this party, and we intend to drive the agenda. People deserve a new New Deal: a $25 living wage, stronger unions, affordable housing, taxes on billionaires and a sustained fight for Medicare for All," said Geevarghese. "If Democrats retreat into caution and fail to improve people’s lives, they will rebuild the distrust Trump exploited. The people organized for change. We organized to win. Now we organize to make Democrats deliver."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani also weighed in on the implications of Tuesday's election results, saying at a press conference that "what last night told us is that Americans are tired of being told that their needs are unrealistic, by politicians who have been bought by the wealthiest people in the country."
"This country has elected a new generation of leadership, a generation with a mandate to lower the cost of living, to build not bomb, to never betray the working people who entrusted them with power," said Mamdani. "And I hear often that the politics that we're fighting for here in New York City are not possible outside of city limits. And what last night showed us is that working people are the majority, whether we are speaking of Austin or Ann Arbor or Astoria. It is time to put those same people first in our politics."
"Those in control of the House have the power and responsibility to hold this lawless president accountable through impeachment.”
A campaign launched on Wednesday is urging Democrats to use their new majorities in the US House of Representatives and Senate next year to impeach and remove President Donald Trump.
In announcing its "Time to Impeach" campaign, nonprofit legal advocacy organization Free Speech For People said impeachment proceedings against the president should begin on the very first day of the next Congress.
The group noted that 147 House Democrats in September voted to advance impeachment articles against Trump filed by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who accused the president of abusing his powers by letting federal immigration enforcement officials run roughshod over people's constitutional rights.
Free Speech For People also said it has already gathered more than 1.1 million signatures for its online petition to impeach the president.
"Members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution," said Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director at Free Speech For People. "When the new Congress convenes in January, those in control of the House have the power and responsibility to hold this lawless president accountable through impeachment."
John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech For People, said impeachment was the only acceptable remedy "to address a corrupt and dangerous executive who tramples on the Constitution and the rule of law."
"If Congress fails to act, it will set a dangerous precedent that Trump—and any president hereafter—can operate above the law," Bonifaz stressed. "The Constitution demands that we impeach and remove Trump from public office."
Despite the group's advocacy for aggressive action, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) signaled that he is not in any rush to begin impeachment proceedings.
"I haven't had a single member of the House Democratic caucus talk to me about impeachment," Jeffries told reporters on Wednesday. "We've been relentlessly focused on affordability and accountability. Because the House is a separate and coequal branch of government... and the days of the House of Representatives functioning like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration are over."
Jeffries: "I haven't had a single member of the House Democratic caucus talk to me about impeachment. We've been relentlessly focused on affordability and accountability."
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 4, 2026 at 12:32 PM
Jeffries emphasized this means that Congress under his leadership will "serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch."
In an interview with the Baltimore Banner published Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is in line to take over as chair of the House Judiciary Committee next year, would not take a third impeachment of the president off the table.
"We’re not afraid to impeach Donald Trump," said the Maryland Democrat. "We’ve done it twice. He has 50% of all the presidential impeachments in American history."
Raskin also addressed critics who said that impeaching Trump a third time should be off the table given there is little chance of him being convicted in the US Senate.
"[Impeachment] cannot be a fetish, but it also can’t be a taboo either,” Raskin said. “It is one of the people’s major instruments of constitutional self-defense against a president who continues to act like a king or an emperor."
"Will Democrats finally get it?" asked one progressive expert. "Americans are tired of war. They want a new foreign policy."
Nearly three-quarters of Americans who voted in Tuesday's midterm elections said that President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran was a significant factor in their vote, a figure that opponents of US militarism said underscored the need for the Democrats to become a true anti-war party.
According to NBC News exit polling, 74% of voters called the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran a "crucial" or "major" factor in their vote, with Democrats winning 63% of people who responded that way. Meanwhile, 63% of voters said the Trump administration made the wrong decision in taking military action against Iran, compared with 37% who said it was the right decision.
"There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is," Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday in a lengthy social media post. "One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true."
"But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone," the vice president continued. "The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night."
Indeed, Trump acknowledged that the war harmed Republicans, telling Fox News, "I think a part of it was Iran," but nevertheless defended the 35-week military campaign, insisting that "people understood the importance of what I've done with Iran."
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump was similarly unapologetic, declaring: "I did the right thing. I would have done it again."
Numerous observers contended that Tuesday's results offered an opportunity for Democrats to do more than simply capitalize on Republican mistakes.
"Among other things, this is an absolute rebuke of the war in Iran. Democrats would be wise to heed that lesson and truly become the anti-war party," said commentator Ben Rhodes—who, while serving as a senior national security adviser to then-President Barack Obama, supported US intervention in countries including Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as Obama's wider drone war campaign.
Geopolitics scholar Van Jackson opined on social media that "if Democrats remain the party of the national security state, they will lose everything in 2028. If they become the anti-war party, they’ll consolidate this wave with the presidency."
A Wednesday analysis on the libertarian site Reason by Matthew Petti argued that Democrats now have an opportunity to exercise Congress' constitutional power over the war, including by withholding military funding.
Petti noted that Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Fox News last week, "The House and the Senate should stop the funding for any further actions in the Iran War," just like "we did to stop the Vietnam War."
However, Petti cautioned that Democratic electoral victories usually don't lead to anti-war foreign policy.
"Party leadership that is willing to attack Republicans' execution of the war may not share a principled anti-war commitment," he wrote, recalling how Democrats who swept the 2006 midterms over public anger with the Iraq War but then struggled to use their control of both chambers of Congress to end it.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wants his party to cut off funding for Trump's war and said Democrats can do so by demanding explicit restrictions on war spending as a condition of supporting the fiscal year 2027 government funding bill that expires next month.
"Right now, the continuing resolution goes through December 11," Van Hollen told The Lever on Tuesday. "And my view is that Democrats should not advance spending to continue to fund this war."
"The Vietnam War ended only when Congress defunded it," he added. "This is an illegal war, and we need to make sure that taxpayer monies are not used to continue an illegal war."
Institute for Middle East Understanding executive director Margaret DeReus pleaded on social media, "For the love of all that is good, Democrats, do not squander this."
"The voters have given you a mandate. Use it. Be the party of working people. Be the anti-war party. Be the anti-corruption party," she added. "We cannot go back to business as usual."
Matt Duss, a former top aide to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who serves as executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, noted that "Trump ran and won as an anti-war candidate in 2024 because Democrats left that lane wide open for him."
"Voters have just brutally punished him and the GOP for breaking that promise. Will Democrats finally get it?" Duss added. "Americans are tired of war. They want a new foreign policy."
Although Angie Nixon wasn't among the Democrats who helped her party reclaim the US Senate on Tuesday, the democratic socialist's near-win in Florida—without establishment support—sent a clear message about what might be possible in the Sunshine State going forward.
After a "stunning" primary victory over establishment-backed Lt. Col. Alex Vindman in August, Nixon—a 42-year-old Black businesswoman and state representative from Jacksonville who belongs to both Democratic Socialists of America and the Working Families Party (WFP)—secured 48% of the vote in the general election, compared with Republican Sen. Ashley Moody's 50.9%, with over 95% of ballots tallied as of Wednesday afternoon.
Nixon refused to back off her progressive platform after her primary win, continuing to campaign on Medicare for All, free childcare, paid family and sick leave, a national rent freeze and eviction moratorium, a universal jobs program, ending wars, getting big money out of politics, and taxing billionaires in a state written off by the Democratic Party throughout the 21st Century.
"I'm proud of the race we ran. We helped drive turnout and broke the supermajority in the state House and Senate. 2028 is around the corner. LFG!" Nixon said on social media late Tuesday. "We invested in grassroots organizers and partnered with candidates down ballot. I'm so proud of the work we did helping to flip 17 House seats. Many of whom were candidates we partnered with in the primary. Imagine what would have happened if we had more investment early on."
As people across the country took note of her close race—and some called out the national Democratic Party and its leadership for not pouring into the contest—Nixon added early Wednesday, "Invest in the South."
Jonathan Cohn, political director of the group Progressive Mass, said on social media that "Angie Nixon sadly didn't win, but for a race the national party did not invest in, she did damn well."
Amanda Litman, president of Run for Something, which recruits and supports young Democrats to seek elected office, said that she's "not sure there's a federal candidate in the country who worked as hard—with as little national help—as Angie Nixon. What a star."
Stressing that Florida, now Trump's home state, "is the absolute epicenter of MAGA," political commentator Kyle Kulinski highlighted that "a democratic socialist nearly pulled off one of the biggest upsets in political history. What a tremendous campaign from Angie Nixon."
WFP national director Maurice Mitchell said in a statement that "we are incredibly proud of Angie's campaign and our part in it. But there is no hiding our anger, because this race was winnable."
"In the face of outsized spending and racist attacks, Angie's people-centered campaign came within inches of defeating an incumbent senator," he emphasized. "The Democratic establishment failed to invest in Angie, because she wasn't their preferred candidate."
"The Working Families Party is proud to have been the first national organization to endorse Angie," he continued, "and we're committed to recruiting and running powerful leaders like her all across the South."
Some critics directly called out Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who's expected to lead the chamber again when Democrats officially reclaim their majority in January.
"Never forget that Angie Nixon lost by three points after being snubbed by Schumer and the Dem establishment for running on a progressive, DSA-backed platform this cycle," said Jack Petocz, senior director of programs and communications at Gen-Z for Change.
Although Schumer didn't bother with the race, Nixon was endorsed by national leftist leaders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
As the results rolled in late Tuesday, Jeremy Slevin, Sanders' communications director and senior adviser, pointed out that "Bernie held four rallies for Angie Nixon, had four staffers on the ground, contributed $330,000 to support her directly, and raised another $266,000. She's currently within about 2 points. Imagine if the establishment hadn't written this race off."
Jayapal said late Tuesday that "even though Angie Nixon did not pull it out, she ran an incredibly competitive race, and drove up votes down ballot for other candidates. She was underestimated and overspent at every step, but she never stopped being who she was and running on bold, progressive values. Thank you, Angie!!"
At The American Prospect, Naomi Bethune and James Baratta noted that "Moody will have to run again for a full term in 2028. Given how close the matchup between Moody and Nixon ended up, the energetic progressive insurgent is expected to try again."