

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.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement as world leaders meet in Chicago for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization. NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective defense.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement as world leaders meet in Chicago for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization. NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective defense.
"NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military action. By hiding behind the claim that the organization provides for 'common defense,' NATO allows us to wage wars of choice under the guise of international peacekeeping. The most recent example was the unconstitutional war in Libya where NATO, operating under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians, instead backed one side in a civil war and pursued a policy of regime change.
"Today, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago to discuss the future of Afghanistan. The talks are being billed as discussions of plans to end the war. The war in Afghanistan is not ending. These talks are simply about financing the next phase of the war.
"The Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan commits us to the country for at least another decade, despite public support for the war being at an all time low. The United States will pay for half of the estimated $4.1 billion per year cost of supporting 352,000 Afghan army and police officers. Afghanistan's contribution will be $500,000. The rest will be financed by our 'NATO partners.' It is not surprising that support for the war among NATO members is waning, with France threatening to pull out its troops by the end of this year.
"Our participation in NATO comes at a great financial cost to the U.S. We contribute the majority of funds for NATO's common budget, including 25% of the military budget. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget. We also incur significant costs through the deployment of our forces in support of NATO missions. According to The Atlantic, the war in Libya cost the United States $1.1 billion.
"NATO was originally founded to provide a strategic counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Its founding purpose no longer exists, but NATO continues to circumvent the authority of the United Nations and to provoke other nations. NATO is an anachronism. Instead of trying to bolster the organization, we should begin serious discussions to dismantle it."
Dennis Kucinich is an American politician. A U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, he was also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004 and 2008.
"No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning," said one veteran journalist. "Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
The is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Speculation and alarm was triggered overnight after the Federal Aviation Administration late Tuesday, with nothing more than "special security reasons” given as a reason, ordered the suspension of all incoming and outgoing flights from the airport in El Paso, Texas.
"What on Earth is going on?" asked Franklin Leonard, a contributing editor with Vanity Fair, in a reaction to the news—given the limited information provided by the federal government—that was similarly expressed by many online.
In a post on Instagram, the El Paso International Airport said, "All flights to and from El Paso are grounded, including commercial, cargo and general aviation. The FAA has issued a flight restriction halting all flights to and from El Paso effective from February 10 at 11:30 PM (MST) to February 20 at 11:30PM (MST)." No further details were given and passengers were told to contact their carrier for status on specific flights.
Speculation on social media—including concerns about US military operations, connections to President Donald Trump's sweeping deportation operations, and other unsubstantiated notions—was rife in the early hours of Wednesday morning as word spread of the closure. Others simply noted the unusual nature of the FAA order.
"So this is really strange," John Stempkin, a veteran news producer with NPR, said of the unexplained closure. "No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning. Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
A statement from the airport said the grounding order had been given “on short notice” and that it was waiting for additional guidance from the FAA. In its notice, the FAA said the federal government “may use deadly force” against aircraft violating the airspace and determined to pose “an imminent security threat.”
The grounding of flights, noted the Associated Press, "is likely to create significant disruptions given the duration and the size of the metropolitan area. El Paso, a border city with a population of nearly 700,000 and larger when you include the surrounding metro area, is hub of cross-border commerce alongside neighboring Ciudad Juarez in Mexico."
Reached by phone early Wednesday by the New York Times for his reaction, Representative Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents San Antonio, said he had no idea what was going on. “Sorry, I don’t have some clear answer,” Castro told the Times. Asked if he was surprised, the lawmaker simply said, “Yes.”
"They tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," said Sen. Mark Kelly. "That’s not the way things work in America."
A federal grand jury on Tuesday declined to go along with an effort by the Trump Justice Department to indict Democratic lawmakers involved in a November video reminding members of the US military of their duty to refuse illegal orders, a message that came as President Donald Trump deployed troops to major American cities.
The failed attempt to indict the six Democratic lawmakers was led by Trump loyalist Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia. The New York Times reported that federal prosecutors "sought to persuade the grand jurors that the lawmakers had violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the US armed forces."
Trump, who has repeatedly weaponized the Justice Department against his political opponents, erupted in response to the 90-second video, accusing the Democratic lawmakers behind it of "seditious behavior, punishable by death."
The lawmakers who appeared in the video were Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan as well as Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. The Democrats learned they were under investigation last month when they received inquiries from Pirro's office.
Lawmakers and legal observers said it was deeply alarming that the DOJ even tried to secure the indictment.
"What an ugly assault on the First Amendment and on Congress," said legal scholar Ryan Goodman. "Thankfully, thwarted."
Kelly, a retired Navy captain who is facing Pentagon attempts to censure him and cut his military benefits, said the effort to indict him and his fellow Democratic lawmakers was "an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies."
"It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," Kelly wrote on social media. "That’s not the way things work in America."
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship. pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 18, 2025
Slotkin, a former CIA officer who organized the November video, said Pirro pursued the indictment "at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition."
"Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good," the senator said. "But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the administration. It was another sad day for our country."
"Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies," Slotkin added. "No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law."
Sen. Ron Wyden called the tax giveaway "indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
Nearly all US Senate Republicans on Tuesday voted to block a resolution that would have reversed a Trump administration regulatory change set to give some of the country's richest companies a $10.3 billion tax break.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was spearheaded by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Angus King (I-Maine). The vote on whether to advance it was 47-51. The only Republican to vote in favor was the other Mainer, Susan Collins, who just confirmed she is running for another term, despite two strong Democratic challengers.
In a statement after the vote, Wyden tied the target of his resolution—an Internal Revenue Service guidance undermining the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT)—to the sweeping budget package that GOP lawmakers passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer, which also featured significant tax breaks for the rich.
"The ink is barely dry on the megabill Trump and Republicans passed to give $1 trillion in new tax breaks to giant corporations, and now his Treasury Department is throwing another $10 billion handout to the most profitable corporations in America," Wyden said.
"The pattern we're seeing is that the Trump administration gives big corporations and ultrawealthy donors whatever tax benefits they want the second they walk through the door at the Treasury Department, but that doesn't mean the Senate has to allow this giveaway to happen," he stressed. "Stuffing $10 billion into the coffers of corporations that are already raking in enormous profits is indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
King similarly declared that "it's downright unfair to give billions in tax relief to America's most successful corporations when Maine people are struggling to afford their prescription drugs, childcare, and groceries." He described their resolution as "a commonsense step toward a fairer tax policy that prioritizes people over profits and levels the playing field."
Although the defeat was predictable, economic justice advocates lambasted Senate Republicans for killing the resolution.
Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass said in a statement that "after passing historic tax giveaways for billionaires and big business through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA), blowing up the deficit, and cutting billions from critical healthcare and nutrition programs to pay for it, Trump and his GOP allies in the Senate are taking every opportunity to ensure economic elites can avoid paying their fair share."
"This guidance would effectively circumvent Congress and create numerous opportunities for corporate tax evasion while increasing the deficit and national debt, thus creating more imbalance in a tax code that already favors the wealthy and large corporations," Kass said. "Sen. Wyden is right to lead the charge to stop this guidance—average Americans should not be forced to subsidize some of the most profitable companies on Earth."
Like the Senate, the House of Representatives is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, noted in a Tuesday blog post that "even if lawmakers of both parties had sufficient backbone to retake the legislative power that the executive branch has usurped, President Trump would veto such a bill."
"But as a matter of educating lawmakers and the public, the recently rejected measure was a success given that tax legislation (such as this resolution) up for a vote in Congress usually gets an official budget score from Congress' revenue estimators at the Joint Committee on Taxation," he wrote. "And in this case, that reveals that this unilateral corporate tax cut from the Trump administration will cost $10 billion over a decade unless it is reversed."
"The Senate's failure to ratify Wyden's resolution may be only the opening salvo for members of Congress who want to retake the power given them under the Constitution to make tax law," Gardner suggested. "The regulation in question is not the first, and surely not the last, attempt by President Trump to unilaterally cut corporate taxes."