April, 14 2015, 04:30pm EDT

CODEPINK Statement on Cuba's Removal from the US Terrorist List
We applaud President Obama for the announcement today that Cuba will be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition to the economic embargo imposed in 1962, Cuba has unjustly languished on the U.S. State Department's state-sponsored terror list since 1982--despite posing no threat to the United States' national security. Today, we are happy to note that this has finally changed.
WASHINGTON
We applaud President Obama for the announcement today that Cuba will be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition to the economic embargo imposed in 1962, Cuba has unjustly languished on the U.S. State Department's state-sponsored terror list since 1982--despite posing no threat to the United States' national security. Today, we are happy to note that this has finally changed.
It was President Ronald Reagan who put Cuba on the terrorism list. He sought to blacklist Cuba's support for leftist movements in Central and South America, movements that challenged US hegemony in the region. And after denouncing Cuba as a sponsor of terrorism, Reagan pursued his own campaign in Central and South America--funding the extreme right, conducting covert military actions, brokering illegal arms deals, and attempting coup d'etats.
The infamous US terror list includes only three other nations: Iran, Sudan, and Syria and curiously omits North Korea. Many people around the world found it hypocritical for the United States to single out Cuba while ignoring support for terrorism by U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Israel, especially since Cuba is known for exporting doctors, musicians, teachers, artists, and dancers -- not terrorists. They could also argue that US actions--such as invading Iraq on the basis of lies or killing people by drones with no due process--would merit labeling the US itself as a state sponsor of terror.
President Obama's announcement that Cuba will be taken off the terror list follows the historic announcement on December 17, 2014 that the U.S. and Cuba would seek to normalize relations. Why the drastic change after decades of bitterness? As Obama said during his State of the Union speech, "When what you're doing doesn't work for 50 years, it's time to try something new."
Cuba's removal from the list will hopefully warm efforts to normalize relations between the two nations. The terrorism designation was Cuba's primary demand in reestablishing diplomatic ties. Serving as a point of contention during diplomatic talks, the dispute has even snarled progress towards opening embassies.
So now that Cuba is off the terror list, what happens next? Hopefully, the "Interest Sections" in both countries will be turned into embassies. It will be easier for international banks to do business with Cuba and the staff of the soon-to-be re-minted Cuban Embassy will finally be allowed to bank in the United States instead of having to conduct all their transactions in cash. But sadly, not much will change until the economic embargo is lifted. The president himself can make further changes by executive authority, but ultimately the lifting of the embargo must be done by Congress.
President Obama's announcement to remove Cuba from the State Department's state-sponsored terror list is a step in the right direction, but we still have a long road ahead. As Cuba's removal from the list opens the pathway to opening embassies, we must now turn to Congress and demand that they further the president's actions by ending the American travel ban to Cuba and the entire economic embargo.
CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.
(818) 275-7232LATEST NEWS
Warren to Trump Treasury Chief: Did You Give Wall Street Execs Insider Info on Trade Talks?
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Apr 28, 2025
Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is pressing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for answers following reports that officials inside President Donald Trump's White House have been providing Wall Street executives with advance notice about potentially market-moving trade talks with other nations, including China and India.
In a letter to Bessent dated April 25, Warren points to a Bloombergstory noting that Bessent "told a closed-door investor summit" that the "tariff standoff with China cannot be sustained by both sides and that the world's two largest economies will have to find ways to de-escalate."
The summit, which took place last Tuesday, was hosted by the Wall Street behemoth JPMorgan Chase in Washington, D.C. Bloomberg observed that the S&P 500 rose nearly 3% after Bessent's comments were leaked.
CNN additionally reported that Bessent's private assessment of the U.S.-China standoff "gave a boost to a Wall Street rally that had taken shape earlier on Tuesday, with all three major U.S. stock indexes hitting their highest levels of the day after Bessent's remarks were made public."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies."
Warren wrote in her letter that the JPMorgan event "was not open to the public or media" and expressed concern that Bessent "provided a room full of wealthy investors and Wall Street executives exclusive, advance tips about the administration's trade policy, potentially creating the opportunity for insider trading or other financial profiteering by well-connected friends of the administration."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies," Warren continued. "President Trump's opaque decision-making on tariffs and frequent, seemingly random changes of course have created a scenario where wealthy investors and well-connected corporations can get special treatment, receiving inside information they can use to time the market, or obtaining tariff exemptions that are worth billions of dollars—while Main Street, small businesses, and America's families are left to clean up the damage."
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs, while withholding that information from the public," the senator added, demanding that Bessent answer a series of questions—including who attended the event and how much time passed between his private remarks and press reports on the event.
Warren sent the letter a day after Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino reported that unnamed officials inside the Trump White House have been "alerting Wall Street execs they are nearing an agreement in principle on trade with India," heightening concerns that the administration is effectively encouraging insider trading.
Trump told reporters Friday that he "can't imagine" anyone in his administration tipping off Wall Street executives about nonpublic trade developments.
"I have very honorable people, that I can say," the president said. "So I can't even imagine it."
On Monday, a group of congressional Democrats warned the White House of "potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws by individuals close to the president with access to nonpublic information."
The Democratic lawmakers pointed specifically to a spike in the volume of call options—essentially bets that a stock price will rise—shortly before Trump announced a partial tariff pause earlier this month.
"We therefore urgently request a full accounting of the periodic transaction reports for all senior White House and executive branch employees since the start of the administration, and we ask for your commitment to transmit all reports to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to be made public, as was done during the first Trump administration," the lawmakers wrote Monday. "By failing to take these steps, the administration would be withholding critical information from the American people regarding potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The American People Do Not Want Oligarchy': Poll Shows Trump's Approval at Historic Low at 100-Day Mark
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies will cause an economic recession in the short term.
Apr 28, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump nears the 100-day mark of his second term, a recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows that his approval rating now sits at a historic low of 39%, a nadir that prompted one prominent progressive to remark that the negative public sentiment comes as "the resistance is just beginning."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has mounted a highly successful "Fighting Oligarchy" tour across America in recent months, highlighted the findings of the poll on Sunday and wrote: "The American people do not want oligarchy, authoritarianism, or attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, or the VA," speaking of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The poll, which conducted a random national sample of 2,464 adults in English and Spanish between April 18-22, found discontent among voters when it comes to Trump's handling of multiple policies issues, particularly on the economy.
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies—such as sweeping tariffs—will cause an economic recession in the short term.
What's more, 53% say the economy is worse since Trump took office and 62% said that the prices for things they rely on have gone up.
Trump's overall approval on immigration policy, one of his core campaign issues, is also less than 50%. When it comes to his handling of immigration—an area where Trump has moved to roll back birthright citizenship, deported U.S. citizens, and invoked a rarely used wartime authority to deport Venezuelan nationals to a megaprison in El Salvador, among other measures—his approval rating sits at 46%, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Additionally, over 55% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" when it comes to seeking to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off federal employees to reduce the size of government, and taking measures agains this political foes.
Overall, his approval among Americans has dipped from 45% positive in February to 39% positive on the eve of the 100-day mark, which is on Tuesday.
According to The Washington Post's analysis of the poll results, Trump's approval at 100 days in both of his terms is lower than any other president's at or near the 100-day mark "since polls began." Polling data on this question stretches back to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) third term, per the Post, when his approval rating was at 68% at the 100-day point. ABC News' write up of the poll results says that "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years."
Some have drawn parallels between Trump and FDR, whose first 15 weeks in office in 1933 were dominated by a push to work with Congress on economic recovery and relief for working people, the first phase of what's known as the "New Deal." However, historians have noted that in substance the two could not be more different.
In reporting piece published Monday, the Post noted that Roosevelt's push in the first 100 days led to major new laws, while Trump largely relies on executive order.
"Roosevelt spent an awful lot of time trying to craft constitutional justifications in legislation, and draft it in such a way that the courts might accept it," Anthony Badger, a historian and author of FDR: The First Hundred Days, told the Post. "He wasn't trying to do it by executive order."
The historian and author Eric Rauchway toldCNN recently that substantively Trump's policies are the "opposite of the New Deal."
Trump "seems to be taking apart regulatory mechanisms. He seems to be drawing down public investment in a variety of areas, including the arts and so forth. He seems to be, as far as I can tell, diminishing resources sent to the Social Security Administration, which of course is the central piece of the New Deal’s proto-welfare state," Racuhway told the outlet.
In a similar vein to Sanders, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that Trump's actions in his first 100 days serves as a call to mobilization and to "loudly and boldly sound the alarm."
"The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray," wrote Reich. "At this rate, we won't make it through the second hundred days."
Reich suggested that that answer is for Americans to speak out and urge lawmakers in Congress, both chambers of which are currently GOP-controlled, to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Voters Support Third Trump Impeachment: Poll
"It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power," said Free Speech for People's campaign director.
Apr 28, 2025
New polling shows a majority of U.S. voters support Congress impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a third time, which would break a record the Republican set during his first term, when he was twice impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
Specifically, a polling memo published Friday by ASO Communications and Research Collaborative shows that just a few months into Trump's return to the White House, 52% of likely voters across the ideological spectrum somewhat or strongly support impeaching him—including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 20% of his fellow Republicans.
The survey was conducted from April 18-21 by Data for Progress. The polling firm also asked the 1,171 respondents, "Thinking of an impeachment effort led by Democrats in Congress, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if none are exactly right?"
The largest share of respondents (46%)—including 80% of Democrats, 52% of Independents, and 9% of Republicans—said that "Democrats in Congress should attempt to impeach Trump because they have a duty to remove a president that has violated Americans' constitutional rights and the law."
Another 38% said Democrats should not impeach Trump because he hasn't done anything worthy of that, while 17% said they should avoid impeachment "because it is a performative action that will likely fail and make the Democratic Party look weak."
The Friday memo notes that "support for impeachment is now on par with the levels seen during the two most recent impeachment proceedings—even before a full public case has been presented. This moment offers an opportunity to build that case for the American public and demonstrate that elected leaders are committed to upholding their oaths and are willing to act boldly to protect our freedoms, our families, and our futures."
In response to the polling, Free Speech for People campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty declared that "Americans across the country refuse to let Trump and his allies destroy our democracy."
Free Speech for People is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign, which includes a petition that has now been signed by over 370,000 people nationwide. The group's constitutional lawyers have documented abuses of power by Trump and his billionaire allies since Inauguration Day, from illegal actions targeting immigrants and seeking retribution against perceived adversaries to attacking voting rights and having criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams dismissed.
According to Flores-Quilty, "It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Although the GOP now narrowly holds both chambers of Congress, articles of impeachment against the president could still be coming soon from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).
The Hillreported that Green said during an early April anti-Trump rally: "We need a Senate that will convict him this time, and I want you to know, from my heart, from my heart, I understand that he is a Goliath. He is a Goliath. He has control of the generals in the military. He has control of the Justice Department. He has control of the Republican Party, but my friends, my friends, for every Goliath, there is a David."
"And I want you to know, Mr. President, this David is going to bring articles of impeachment against you within the next 30 days," he told the crowd in Washington, D.C. "Within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment. I'm coming for you. Mr. President, this David is coming for you."
New NYT/Siena Poll: —Trump's approval rating is 42% vs. 54% disapprove —59% of voters think Trump's 2nd term in office is "scary" —54% say Trump is "exceeding the powers available to him" —Trump has negative approval in all policy areas www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/u...
[image or embed]
— Yonah Freemark (@yonahfreemark.com) April 25, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Other recent surveys have also found that voters are alarmed by or unhappy with the president. For example, a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted from April 21-24 shows that 66% of voters describe his second term as "chaotic," 59% think it's "scary," 54% disapprove of how Trump is handling his job, and 53% believe that the United States is "headed in the wrong direction."
An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted April 18-22 similarly found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the president's job performance. A majority of voters also said that Trump is "going too far" in trying to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off government employees, taking measures against political opponents, and trying to end efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular