

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.
Immediately after the first presidential debate, the cross-partisan Open Debate Coalition is announcing that the public will submit and vote on questions at PresidentialOpenQuestions.com -- and ABC and CNN have agreed to receive the most popular 30 questions for consideration in the October 9 presidential town hall debate.
For the first time, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has mandated that moderators of the town hall debate ask questions with input from the internet -- not just questions from voters in the physical room. In 2008, President Obama and Senator McCain endorsed the coalition's call for bottom-up questions, but the CPD did not incorporate the idea until this year.
"The commission was watching closely as the Open Debate Coalition tested out their innovative bottom-up question submission and voting platform in the primaries this year, and we were impressed with the results," said Mike McCurry, Co-Chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, "This year's presidential debate moderators will have a rich pool of voter-submitted questions they can draw on that carry greater weight because they are backed by votes from the American people."
"After coalition meetings with ABC and CNN, the networks have agreed to receive the top 30 questions submitted and voted on by the public at PresidentialOpenQuestions.com for consideration in the portion of the town hall debate featuring questions from the internet," said Lilia Tamm Dixon, Open Debate Coalition Director. "This coalition effort is a first-of-its-kind attempt to ensure moderators can ask questions that are not just submitted by the public, but voted on by the public to truly represent what Republican, Democratic, and Independent families are discussing around their dinner tables. Open Debates are the future."
Top ABC and CNN debate producers had meetings recently with Open Debate Coalition Director Lilia Tamm Dixon, Americans For Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, and Progressive Change Campaign Committee Co-Founder Adam Green -- leading to their agreement. This followed over a year of engagement between the coalition and CPD in advance of the historic announcement that town hall moderators must ask questions with input from the internet. Question submission and voting is now open at PresidentalOpenQuestions.com and coalition organizations will ask their supporters to participate.
The Open Debate Coalition has successfully held open debates in the 2013 special election for Congress in Massachusetts and in the 2016 U.S. Senate debate in Florida. Between the two open debates, more than 2,500 questions were submitted and over 450,000 votes were cast. The Florida debate received over half a million views and was aired on C-SPAN several times. The AP reported, "Both candidates said they enjoyed the format...saying they were more substantive than a typical debate would have been."
"There is a mutual frustration with presidential debate questions dominated by a handful of television personalities rather than average voters," said Grover Norquist, Founder of Americans for Tax Reform. "Our coalition meetings with ABC and CNN have been constructive, and we're eager to see both candidates answer questions that are submitted and voted on by the public in a nationally-televised presidential debate. We anticipate many more Open Debates in the future -- up and down the ballot."
"Bottom-up participation isn't just about choosing topics. It's about allowing the public to truly frame the questions in a way that addresses what voters are actually asking at their kitchen tables," said Adam Green, Co-Founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "We are very hopeful that ABC and CNN will maximize this opportunity. They seem genuinely excited to be leaders in debate innovation, and we hope to make Open Debates the new norm for debates in American politics."
"A more open democracy is always a better one," said Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post and health-and-wellness startup Thrive Global. "In this critical election year, it is imperative that the questions on the minds of voters are asked and answered. ABC and CNN deserve kudos for embracing this participatory model."
"As technology changes, questions posed by moderators to candidates should reflect bottom-up participation from the public -- reinforced by strong follow-up questions and fact checking to ensure the public's questions are answered," said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. "I'm proud to be a founding member of the Open Debate Coalition because bottom-up questions and trustworthy moderation that represents the will of the people is an idea whose time has come."
The Open Debate Coalition was formed during the 2008 election cycle. It includes: Americans for Tax Reform, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, FreedomWorks, NARAL, Faith & Freedom Coalition Founder Ralph Reed, the National Organization for Women, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Color Of Change, Numbers USA, Presente, MoveOn.org, Arianna Huffington, former Romney senior aide Mindy Finn, craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Electronic Frontier Foundation President Cindy Cohn, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and many more. (See full list of coalition members below.)
"We've seen bottom-up online energy thrust new ideas like debt-free college into the national spotlight and 2016 presidential campaign," said Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action, the action arm of think tank Demos. "This same ethos would be a breath of fresh air for our political debates and a major step forward for democratic participation."
"At Define American, we believe that in order to change politics, we first have to change culture. For years, conversations about immigrants have been held without including immigrant families themselves, and this exciting effort will change that," said Jose Antonio Vargas, Founder & CEO of Define American. "This will be a rare opportunity to have candidates for the most critical position in the world respond directly to those they'll represent: the increasingly diverse American public."
"NumbersUSA will reach out to the seven million Americans in our network, urging them to participate in this innovative bottom-up process to ensure that moderators can engage on topics such as immigration and border security in a way that educates voters and truly addresses their questions," said Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA.
Open Debate Coalition is the sponsor of the OpenPresidentalQuestions.com project--bringing together the PCCC, Americans for Tax Reform, and dozens of influential left, right, and Silicon Valley coalition members to give the public a voice in the second debate, which will feature questions from the internet.
"While working families struggle to feed their families, Republicans are cutting funding for fruit and vegetable vouchers for women, infants, and children," said Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
House Republicans, with the help of four Democrats, voted Thursday to approve legislation that would slash nutrition assistance for millions of young children and pregnant and postpartum women, even as food prices continue to rise nationwide and earlier GOP cuts to federal aid take hold.
In a 213-210 vote, largely along party lines, House lawmakers passed an appropriations bill that would fund the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other agencies for the coming fiscal year. The four Democrats who voted with most Republicans to approve the measure were Reps. Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Don Davis (NC).
The bill, if also passed by the Senate and signed by President Donald Trump, would cut fruit and vegetable benefits that young kids and pregnant and postpartum women receive under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated that the cut would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants." Under current law, CBPP observed, "children receive $26 monthly for fruits and vegetables, pregnant and postpartum participants receive $48, and breastfeeding participants receive $52."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said following Thursday's vote that "while working families struggle to feed their families, Republicans are cutting funding for fruit and vegetable vouchers for women, infants, and children."
"Working moms are already stretched thin, and Republicans are making it even harder to put dinner on the table," said DeLauro. "The president’s tariffs have hurt American farmers, and now the Republican plan is to cut off crucial assistance that they have come to rely on even more."
The House-passed appropriations bill would cut WIC by a total of $200 million compared to current levels, slashing $141 million in funding for fruit and vegetable benefits. The USDA's website says that WIC "saves lives and improves the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children," describing the program as "one of the most successful federally funded nutrition programs in the United States."

Trump's USDA chief, Brooke Rollins, has openly celebrated the large-scale loss of federal nutrition aid stemming from the Republican budget package that Trump signed into law last summer. That legislation included unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), another highly effective food aid program.
The House vote to cut WIC broadly aligns with the Trump White House's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027—but doesn't go as far as the president envisioned. The National WIC Association noted that the House bill "cuts WIC’s fruit and vegetable benefits by about 10%, a first step toward an up to 75% cut sought by the White House."
“The House proposal fails WIC families when they need help most," said Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association. "It would force WIC to turn away eligible families for the first time in 30 years, breaking Congress’ 30-year bipartisan commitment to full WIC funding. For the families who receive WIC, it chips away at their ability to buy the very fruits and vegetables that federal dietary guidelines say all Americans should eat more of."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”