January, 08 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Sanders, Khanna Lead Dozens of Lawmakers in Introducing No War Against Iran Act
WASHINGTON
Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the No War Against Iran Act, which denies the Pentagon of any funds for unauthorized use of military force against Iran. A measure to prohibit funds for an unconstitutional war with Iran passed by a bipartisan 251-member vote in the House of Representatives last year, though it was later stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act enacted in December.
In the Senate, the No War Against Iran Act is cosponsored by Senators Schumer (D-N.Y.), Leahy (D-Vt.), Markey (D-Mass.), Wyden (D-Ore.), Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cantwell (D-Wash.), Warren (D-Mass.), Van Hollen (D-Md.), Harris (D-Calif.), Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Merkley (D-Ore.).
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a companion measure to defund unauthorized military action against Iran in the House of Representatives, with 58 cosponsors. The two lawmakers previously partnered on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to end unconstitutional U.S. military participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen last year, the first directive of its kind to be adopted by Congress in the 47-year history of the War Powers Act.
"The American people are sick and tired of endless wars. Nonetheless, the Trump administration has impulsively brought us to the brink of a disastrous and unnecessary war with Iran," said Sanders. "The war in Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of our country. We must learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. We need to invest our financial resources in improving lives here in America, not waste trillions more on wars. The Congress and the American people must do everything possible to prevent a war with Iran."
"We must never forget that under our Constitution, Congress has the responsibility for making war--not the president," Sanders continued. "Our Founding Fathers understood that it was only too easy for a president to lead the country into a disastrous military conflict. That is why they gave the exclusive power over war and peace to the people's elected representatives. We cannot remain bystanders right now. It is imperative that the United States Congress provide the kind of leadership that our country needs by passing this legislation and defending the Constitution and the rule of law. President Trump does not have the right to go to war with Iran without authorization from the representatives of the American people."
"This president promised to put an end to endless wars, but instead has prolonged current conflicts and even risks creating new ones," said Rep. Ro Khanna. "Last year, Senator Sanders and I led the effort to end the Trump-backed Saudi-led war in Yemen by passing a historic War Powers Resolution. Now, we are introducing this legislation to block funds for yet another unconstitutional war against Iran. Our legislation passed the House last year with 27 Republican votes and should have never been stripped out of the Defense bill. We have another chance to pass this legislation and avoid the next trillion-dollar war in the Middle East. It's a necessary step to preserve our constitution and represent our constituents' desire to avoid another catastrophic war."
"The president's erratic, reckless foreign policy is making America less safe and this Administration's brazen willingness to undermine Congress's war powers only underscores the need for this legislation," said Leader Schumer. "The last thing the American people want is another endless war in the Middle East, and this legislation would provide a much-needed check on the president's dangerous impulses. I urge my colleagues to lend their support."
"An armed conflict with Iran would not only risk the lives of countless American servicemen and women, it would likely ignite another endless and enormously costly war in the Middle East," said Sen. Patrick Leahy. "Diplomacy should always be our preferred option, with military force occurring only if negotiations fail. With this bill, we make clear that an armed conflict with Iran requires the approval of the peoples' representatives, after exhausting every other means."
"We must stop a dangerous escalation with Iran," said Sen. Maria Cantwell. "Congress has the power of the purse and we should use it by reminding the president he cannot go to war without authorization."
"The Constitution is very clear that Congress has the authority to declare war and I am supporting this legislation to prevent the start of an unauthorized war with Iran. I am always guided by the hard lessons that should be learned when America chooses to go to war in the Middle East," said Sen. Tammy Baldwin. "After decades of U.S. military engagement in Middle East conflicts, Congress must not allow this administration to repeat the mistakes of the past. We have a constitutional responsibility to prevent the President from going to war with Iran and sending more American troops into harm's way without congressional authorization."
"I am concerned about the potential consequences of conflict with Iran and the president's apparent lack of a coherent strategy going forward," said Sen. Kamala Harris. "Make no mistake: Soleimani was an enemy of the United States, but Trump's actions have further enflamed tensions and destabilized the region. It is essential that Congress take its constitutional responsibility seriously and work to de-escalate the situation."
"Congress shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for a war that it has not authorized," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. "The Constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to both authorize and fund military operations. We are a co-equal branch of government, not a blank checkbook the Trump Administration can turn to after failing to provide transparent reasoning for its unauthorized military action."
"This crisis was unnecessary and avoidable. Make no mistake--President Trump has made us less safe," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. "Without seeking congressional authorization or presenting a clear strategy, President Trump brought us to the brink of war with Iran. President Trump must not take further military action unless he notifies Congress immediately and obtains authorization based on a clear explanation. That's why I'm sponsoring the No War With Iran Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this critically needed bill."
"At this dangerous moment in history, Congress must make something crystal clear to the Trump Administration: the Constitution gives Congress, not the Executive, the power to declare war with Iran," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "This legislation will rein in the reckless actions of the President and should be considered in the Senate without delay."
Read the bill text here.
LATEST NEWS
New Poll Shows Platner Romping in Dem Primary and Comfortably Ahead of Collins for Maine Senate Seat
"Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election... wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake," said one writer.
Feb 24, 2026
The progressive candidate Graham Platner has a commanding lead in the Democratic primary for Maine's US Senate seat over the state's centrist Gov. Janet Mills. Come November, he's also much more likely than Mills to defeat the Republican incumbent, Sen. Susan Collins.
The University of New Hampshire's Pine Tree State Poll, released Tuesday morning, showed that Platner has built momentum since October. Five months ago, 58% of likely Democratic voters said the 41-year-old oyster farmer was their first choice to be the state's next senator, compared with 24% who preferred the governor.
Now, with the June primary less than four months away, undecided voters have broken hard in Platner's favor: 64% said he’s their first choice, while Mills has only jumped up to 26%.
It's perhaps an unsurprising result, as Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the kind of economically populist anti-oligarchy politics that Platner—a proponent of Medicare for All and a federal billionaires' tax, with backing from labor unions and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has unapologetically championed.
But Tuesday's poll suggests his message is not only resonating with Democrats. Where a race between Mills and Collins has the Democrat leading by a single point, within the margin of error, Platner would be expected to win the general election comfortably with 49% of the vote to just 38% for Collins.
The steady shift toward Platner comes as affordability issues have become increasingly salient to Maine voters. A full 35% of voters said that either the cost of living or housing was the most important problem facing Maine.
As President Donald Trump suffers historic unpopularity amid a flailing economy, the most marked shift has been concern about the cost of living. Where just 4% of Mainers said it was their No. 1 issue in March 2025, that number has shot up to 20% this month.
Collins' popularity has been in a dramatic freefall in the era of Trump 2.0, to the point where a late January Morning Consult poll showed her to be the second-least popular US senator, behind only the former longtime GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
While Democratic Party insiders have long argued that voters prefer a safer, moderate candidate when ousting a hated incumbent, observers say Platner's success over the candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and much of the party establishment is redefining what it means to be "electable" in a swing state.
"The fatal part of this poll for Mills isn’t even the massive lead Platner has," said Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim. "It’s that he is 10 points more electable against Collins, which is the real priority for Maine voters who don’t want her in office anymore."
New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells said: "This is a small-sample poll, and there’s a long way to go. But if something like this comes to pass—Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election—it wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of State of the Union Address, Progressive Caucus Leader Tells Trump: ‘We Need Our Money Back’
"Spare us the speech," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Pay up or shut up."
Feb 24, 2026
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump levied illegal tariffs on US businesses and consumers for more than a year, progressive Democrats are escalating demands that Americans get their money back.
Days after the Supreme Court shut down Trump's ability to unilaterally enact tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on Tuesday that during the State of the Union address, Trump should announce refunds for Americans he unlawfully taxed.
"Americans don’t need a rambling, two hour lecture from Trump," Casar wrote in a social media post. "We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he’s profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultra-rich. Spare us the speech. Pay up or shut up."
Casar's demands for tariff refunds aren't isolated.
Politico reported on Monday that Democrats have pounced on the Supreme Court ruling to deliver a simple message to voters: Trump wrongfully took your money and should return it.
Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), who along with Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced legislation mandating tariff refunds on Friday, accused Trump of outright thievery.
"When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you," Horsford told Politico, "they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year."
Horsford's rhetoric echoed a statement made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last week that Trump "illegally stole your money" and "should give it back to you" instead of trying to cook up new ways to slap tariffs on imported goods.
Groundwork Collaborative on Tuesday previewed Trump's State of the Union speech by noting the president has totally failed to keep his promise to bring down prices, adding that his tariffs "cost the average working family nearly $1,200 last year."
"No matter what Trump says in the upcoming State of the Union address," Groundwork Collaborative said, "it won’t change the fact that working families know that the president and his lackeys in Congress alone bear responsibility for painfully high prices and a dragging economy."
Although the Supreme Court clipped Trump's power to levy tariffs via the IEEPA, he has since announced plans to issue a 15% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.
However, as a recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explained, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Analysis Affirms Gaza Health Ministry’s Official Palestinian Death Count
One Israeli expert placed discrepancies in the list at "around 1%." Another said the error rate appears even lower.
Feb 24, 2026
An Israeli analysis published Tuesday examining the Gaza Health Ministry's list of Palestinians killed during Israel's US-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip largely affirmed the official death count, while noting some imperfections in the 2,000-page document.
Haaretz, Israel's oldest daily newspaper, dissected the Gaza Health Ministry's (GHM) database of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, which at the time contained nearly 70,000 names—it's now over 72,000—in part by using artificial intelligence to analyze the massive file.
"A consensus has taken shape: Even if the list has weaknesses, including the fact that it does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, it reflects the scale of the disaster inflicted on Gaza and its people," article author Nir Hasson wrote. "It also forms the basis for allegations that Israel committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide."
Lee Mordechai, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who says Israeli is committing genocide in Gaza, told Hasson, "It's clear that the list isn't 100% accurate and that it has errors, but I think they're around 1%."
Gabriel Epstein, an associate at the US-based Israel Policy Forum who was formerly skeptical of the GHM list, "now believes it is largely accurate and may even slightly undercount the dead," according to Hasson.
"Epstein reviewed the list obtained by Haaretz," the article states. "He found 24 duplicates and 38 entries with problems in the ID numbers. That means 99.91% of the entries were complete, with verified ID numbers. He also found that 64 deaths that had appeared on earlier lists were later removed, while 158 names removed by March of last year were added back."
The GHM list notably only contains the names of people who died from combat-related violence, not from "hunger, disease, accidents, or the collapse of the health system."
It also does not include the thousands of people who are missing and likely dead and buried beneath the rubble of the 80% of Gaza's buildings that have been destroyed or damaged during the war.
Other research, including multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet, have also concluded that the ministry was undercounting the number of people killed by Israel's war on Gaza.
As for the issue of Hamas not differentiating between combatants and civilians on the ministry's death list, an investigation last year by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison analyzed classified Israel Defense Forces intelligence data showing that 5 in 6 Palestinians killed by Israeli troops through the first 19 months of the war were civilians. The probe obliterated IDF claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio.
Last September, Former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who was in command for much of the war—said that “over 10%” of Gaza’s approximately 2.2 million people “were killed or injured” since October 2023. Halevi’s acknowledgment tracked with GHM figures showing at least 228,815 people killed or wounded at the time.
In January, Israeli media outlets including Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel reported that the IDF accepted the accuracy of GHM's death count, which at the time stood at over 71,000.
Israeli officials and media, along with their supportive US counterparts during both the Biden and Trump administrations, once cast doubt upon or outright denied GHM figures because the ministry is under Hamas' control. These aspersions came in addition to widespread Israeli and US denials of Israel’s forced famine and starvation deaths and IDF war crimes in Gaza.
"As the months have passed, claims of fabrication and exaggeration have largely remained confined to Israeli television panels," Hasson wrote in the new analysis. "At the end of January, an apparent dispute over the number of dead seemed to end in Israel when a senior army source confirmed that the IDF recognizes that 70,000 people died, precisely the figure cited by Gazan authorities."
"Even if the argument over the total number of dead is, for now, largely settled, disagreement in Israel continues over who the dead were," he continued. "How many were gunmen, how many were affiliated with Hamas, how many were killed under circumstances that meet the conditions of international law?"
"None of this alters the stark figures in the table," Hasson added. "Of the recorded deaths, 20,876, about 30%, are young girls, teenage girls, and women. Another 3,220 were aged 65 and over, including the final name on the list, Tamam al-Batsh, who was 110 when she died."
While Israel officials continue to insist that GHM figures are "misleading and unreliable"—or even "fake"—Hasson noted the general consistency between Israeli and Palestinian tallies across past Israeli attacks on Gaza. During Operation Cast Lead (2008-09), the Palestinian count was 23% higher than Israel's. For Operation Pillar of Success (2012), Israel's tally of Gazan deaths was 11% higher than the Palestinian figure. In Operation Protective Edge (2014), the Palestinian count was 8% higher. And during 2021's Operation Guardian of the Walls, Palestinian officials counted 10% more Gaza deaths than Israel.
The United Nations and US administrations of both major political parties have long acknowledged the GHM's accounting of Palestinian casualties in Israeli attacks, including the assault that began in October 2023.
Hasson noted that "it has been increasingly harder to find Israeli officials commenting on the subject" of the GHM death count in the ongoing war as evidence of its accuracy mounts.
"Since the war began," he said, "Israel has made no serious effort to demonstrate that the list is false or to present an alternative. It has not proven even once that a person listed as deceased is in fact alive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular