

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.
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action, 951-217-7285 cell, pmartin@peace-action.org
Gabe Murphy, Peace Action, 510-501-3345 cell, gmurphy@peaceaction.org
In response to the House of Representatives passing H.J.Res. 37, legislation directing the president to withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi/UAE-led war in Yemen, Paul Kawika Martin, Senior Director for Policy and Political Affairs at Peace Action, released the following statement:
"Building on last year's Senate vote, the newly empowered House of Representatives just made history by voting to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, marking the first time the House has successfully invoked the War Powers Act to direct the withdrawal of U.S. forces from an unauthorized war. Representative Ro Khanna's skillful and determined leadership on this issue has been critical to advancing this legislation and raising awareness of the suffering of Yemenis at the hands of this U.S. backed intervention. Not only does this vote bolster hopes for a quicker end to the war and the resulting humanitarian crisis, it also signals a timely resurgence in congressional oversight on war. The Senate will have to vote again to send this particular bill to the president's desk, which it should do without delay, but Congress has now made its opposition to U.S. military involvement in Yemen crystal clear.
"For all his lip service to ending U.S. wars in the State of the Union, the president failed to mention Yemen, but this vote makes it impossible to ignore. Assuming the Senate holds strong in opposition to the war, Trump will soon be faced with a choice to acquiesce to the will of Congress and the American people, or to issue his first veto and draw even more international attention to a conflict he'd rather not talk about. Whatever he decides, congressional action is keeping this story alive, in turn forcing the Saudi-led coalition to get serious about negotiating an end to the war.
"For nations participating in the Saudi-led intervention, this new political reality poses a serious threat to their military relationships with the United States. For millions of Yemenis facing indiscriminate airstrikes and war-induced famine, this new political reality offers a glimmer of hope for a more peaceful future. More work remains to be done, but hope is well worth celebrating."
###
Background:
The humanitarian situation in Yemen remains dire. According to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs as of last month, two thirds of Yemen's population, roughly 20.1 million people, are food insecure, a 13 percent increase from 2018. Nearly 10 million people in Yemen are suffering from extreme hunger, including 2 million children under 5 and over 1 million pregnant and breastfeeding women who require treatment for acute malnutrition.
According to an October 2018 World Peace Foundation report, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly targeted food production and distribution facilities in an apparently deliberate attempt to starve the population of Yemen.
A November 2018 IRC/YouGov poll of Americans found that:
* 75 percent oppose U.S. military support for the Saudi and UAE-led coalition in Yemen.
* 82 percent agree Congress should vote to halt or decrease arms sales to the coalition.
This is not the first time members of Congress have attempted to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen by invoking the War Powers Act. On September 27, 2017, Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) introduced H.Con.Res. 81, legislation aimed at ending the unauthorized U.S. role in the war in Yemen. A compromise bill, H.Res. 599, which specifically acknowledged that Congress never authorized U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, was negotiated and passed in the House in a vote of 366-30 on November 13, 2017.
On March 20, 2018, the Senate took a procedural vote on similar legislation invoking the War Powers Act in an effort to end the unauthorized U.S. role in the war in Yemen. A motion to table a motion to discharge the legislation, S.J.Res. 54, passed 55-44, preventing the legislation from moving forward. Late last year, Rep. Khanna worked to bring up H.Con.Res. 81 for a vote, but Paul Ryan added a rule to the Farm bill that prevented Khanna's legislation from coming to a vote. On December 13, 2018, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 54 in a vote of 56-41.
Peace Action is the United States' largest peace and disarmament organization with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs and encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights.
"Donald Trump and Doug Burgum are once again trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters in favor of corporate polluters' bottom line."
While other governments are gathered in Brazil for the United Nations climate summit, the Trump administration on Thursday announced plans for new oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida, drawing sharp denunciations from defenders of the planet and all life on Earth.
After running on a promise to "drill, baby, drill" and raking in campaign cash from Big Oil, President Donald Trump launched his pro-polluter agenda on the first day he returned to office. Doug Burgum, the billionaire fossil fuel industry ally appointed to lead the US Department of the Interior, advanced that agenda on Thursday with his "Unleashing American Offshore Energy" order.
Burgum ordered the department to terminate the Biden administration's 2024-29 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program—which had the fewest sales in history—and replace it with a "new, more expansive" plan "as soon as possible."
While the department said in a statement that "under the new proposal for the 2026-31 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Interior is taking a major step to boost United States energy independence and sustain domestic oil and gas production," critics quickly pointed out the pitfalls of the Trump administration's planet-heating ambitions.
#BREAKING: The Trump admin just released its plan to expand offshore drilling on the West, Gulf & Alaskan coasts of the U.S.This move threatens beloved beaches, precious marine life & countless coastal communities across the country – despite bipartisan public opposition. https://oceana.ly/4pn13t1
[image or embed]
— Oceana (@oceana.bsky.social) November 20, 2025 at 4:14 PM
"Donald Trump and Doug Burgum are once again trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters in favor of corporate polluters' bottom line," declared Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford in a statement. "Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear they oppose offshore drilling. We know the risks are far too great, threatening ecosystems and coastal economies with the risk of spills that would take decades to clean up."
"Despite overwhelming bipartisan opposition, Trump and Burgum are moving forward with their reckless plan to serve their ultimate goal of handing over our public lands and waters to Big Oil CEOs," Blackford continued. "These lease sales are privatization in everything but name—a 'keep out' sign is the same whether an area was sold or leased. The Sierra Club will continue to stand with coastal communities and work to stop this reckless plan dead in the water."
“Trump's plan would risk the health and well-being of millions of people who live along our coasts. It would also devastate countless ocean ecosystems. This admin continues to put the oil industry above people, our shared environment, and the law,” said Earthjustice senior attorney Brettny Hardy.
— Earthjustice (@earthjustice.org) November 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, also blasted the administration's plan for as many as 34 potential offshore lease sales.
"Trump's war on marine life continues with this absolutely unhinged attack on our coasts," she said. "Auctioning off nearly the entire US coast to Big Oil will inflict oil spill after devastating oil spill, harm whales and sea turtles, and wreck fisheries and coastal economies. I'm confident that Americans across the political spectrum will come together to fight Trump's plan to smear toxic crude across our beaches and oceans."
Unlike the Trump administration, the center's energy justice director, Jean Su, is at COP30 in Belém. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat expected to run for president in 2028, also attended the UN conference last week.
"Trump can't stand it that Gov. Newsom showed him up here in Brazil, and I think that explains the timing of this reckless plan to drill our oceans," Su said. "To Trump, this plan is political theater to spite Newsom and the climate talks. But this isn't an episode of The Apprentice. This plan would do immense damage to people and wildlife, damage those of us at COP30 are fighting like hell to defend against."
While Florida is led by a Trump sycophant, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Newsom joined conservation and climate campaigners in calling out the administration's drilling plans. The Democrat said that "Donald Trump's idiotic proposal to sell off California's coasts to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water. We will not stand by as our coastal economy and communities are put in danger."
Trump is rolling out the red carpet for offshore oil and gas—which will inevitably spill into the ocean and increase costs at home. Trump is doing this while sabotaging offshore wind, the energy source that does the exact opposite. He’s not “unleashing American energy”—he’s underwriting Big Oil.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) November 20, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Two other California Democrats, US House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Sen. Alex Padilla, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, similarly said in a joint statement that "with this draft plan, Donald Trump and his administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry."
"They didn't listen to Californians. They didn't listen to communities up and down the West Coast. Instead, Trump wants to take a wrecking ball to our communities while trampling over anyone who stands between him and what billionaires demand," the lawmakers continued. "These lease areas are not only irreplaceable, but allowing drilling in these areas would undermine military readiness and pose risks to national security. But Trump doesn't care."
"Californians remember every spill, every dead dolphin and sea otter, every fishing season wrecked by contamination. We built stronger, cleaner, more resilient coastal communities—and a burgeoning $1.7 trillion coastal economy—in spite of all that. And we're not going to stand by and watch it get destroyed by Trump's oil and gas pet projects," they added. "This plan targets California and the whole West Coast because they think we will roll over. They are wrong. We're going to fight this with everything we have."
"Trump’s approach would lead to more medical bankruptcies, more unaffordable care, and more Americans dying unnecessarily in the richest nation on Earth."
President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have finally started talking about proposals to fix America's healthcare system, but Sen. Bernie Sanders so far has found their ideas to be severely lacking.
In an op-ed published by the Boston Globe on Thursday, Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the GOP healthcare plans as "absurd" ideas that "would take our already broken healthcare system and make it even worse."
Sanders then ripped apart Trump's plan to simply send Americans a lump sum of money that they could use to negotiate their own healthcare package, which he said would be an "absolute disaster."
"At a time when more than 60 percent of our people live paycheck to paycheck, a $6,500 check is meaningless in the face of real medical costs," he argued. "How is someone who needs a $150,000 cancer treatment going to get the care they need with a $6,500 check? What is a pregnant woman supposed to do with a $6,500 check when the average cost of childbirth in America is over $20,000? How is someone who has a heart attack going to be able to afford a $50,000 hospital stay with just $6,500?"
All of this, Sanders continued, would simply cause more people in the US to go bankrupt from trying to afford their medical expenses, which is a situation that does not occur in any nation that has universal healthcare.
"Trump’s approach would lead to more medical bankruptcies, more unaffordable care, and more Americans dying unnecessarily in the richest nation on Earth," he said.
Sanders argued that the long-term solution for the US healthcare crisis is a single-payer Medicare for All system that he has been proposing for his entire political career.
However, he also acknowledged that this proposal currently lacks support in the US Congress, and he pitched some alternative ideas to serve as a bridge to truly universal healthcare, including extending the enhanced tax credits first passed in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan; repealing the nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid that were passed by Republicans earlier this year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care.
Sanders also challenged the president to support banning stock buybacks and dividends for health insurance companies, which he called a waste of resources that should be devoted to patients' care.
"The American people know that our healthcare system is broken," Sanders concluded. "With the country’s increased focus on health, Democrats must be strong in rallying the American people around a rational healthcare system that works for all, not just insurance and drug companies."
Sanders on Thursday made similar points in an op-ed published by Fox News in which he ripped the GOP for slashing Medicaid funding simply so Big Tech titans like Tesla CEO Elon Musk could have more money to "build millions of robots that will, by the way, decimate good-paying jobs throughout our country."
Earlier this week, the senator also sent a letter urging Democrats in Congress to support the policies outlined in his new opinion pieces.
"Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent," said DC's attorney general. "This federal overreach is not normal or legal."
A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard troops to police Washington, DC, is illegal and must come to an end.
Over objections from city officials, Trump ordered the troops to flood the nation's capital in August to deter what he claimed was an unstoppable crime wave, even though crime was falling precipitously and was at a 30-year low.
Federal District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote that the Trump administration “exceeded the bounds of their authority” and “acted contrary to law” by deploying the National Guard "for nonmilitary, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city’s civil authorities."
She wrote that while Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Trump's legal authority to deploy troops around the country is subject to limits by Congress, especially in DC, where it has the ultimate authority under the Constitution.
She wrote that the court "rejects defendants’ fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the president’s Article II authority would erase Congress’ role in governing the district and its National Guard."
Cobb also said that the Pentagon lacked statutory authority to deploy more than 1,000 out-of-state National Guard members to DC. She wrote that "the district’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by defendants’ actions in deploying the guards."
While finding the administration's actions illegal, Cobb said it will not be required to pull back troops immediately. She gave the administration until December 11 to file an appeal.
“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action,” Cobb concluded. “There is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.”
The ruling follows a lawsuit in early September from the office of DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
"The court has ruled that the National Guard deployment to DC is illegal and granted a preliminary injunction," Schwalb said after the ruling was handed down. "As we made clear from the start: The US military should not police American citizens on American soil. This is a victory for DC, home rule, and American democracy."
The ruling comes amid legal battles over Trump's moves to deploy the National Guard in other US cities. The US Supreme Court is expected to soon weigh in on his deployment in Chicago, even as some troops sent to Illinois are headed home.
"Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent," Schwalb continued. "No president should be empowered to disregard states’ independence and deploy troops anywhere—with no check on their military power. This federal overreach is not normal or legal."