

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.

Ariel Gold | ariel@codepink.org | 510 599 5330
Medea Benjamin | medea.benjamin@gmail.com | 415 235 6517
Today, more than 100 organizations representing millions of Americans sent a letter calling on presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and President Trump to adopt a just and principled foreign policy towards the state of Israel and the Palestinian people, one that prioritizes freedom, dignity, and equality for all people. Signatories of the letters include American Muslims for Palestine, CODEPINK; Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR); If Not Now; Jewish Voice for Peace; Kairos USA; Presbyterian Church USA and Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN).
The letter, organized by CODEPINK, states: "Current U.S. positions supporting, indeed enabling, Israeli government violations are out of touch with voters. U.S. foreign policy on Israel/Palestine should be rooted in the same values and principles that are supposed to guide U.S. policy throughout the rest of the world -- respecting human rights and international law, promoting the peaceful resolution of conflicts, supporting diplomacy over military intervention, and utilizing multilateralism and multilateral institutions for dispute resolution."
The letter comes on the heels of a recent Biden campaign statement conflating American Jewry with support for Israel and bragging about having increased military assistance to Israel at the end of Obama's term. The statement also promised to continue, in violation on the First Amendment, attacks on individuals and organizations that boycott Israel for political reasons and referred to Palestinian "choices" to commit violence.
Within days of the release of the statement from the Biden campaign, so much backlash had accumulated that the degrading language of Palestinian "choices" was removed. This backlash reflects the growing American support for Palestinian rights, which provides an opportunity to influence policy regarding Palestinians and the state of Israel as America heads into the November 2020 election.
"Rather than reflecting the growth of support for Palestinian human rights within the Democratic party, Biden seems to be trying to show that he can be almost as hawkish and one-sided as Trump when it comes to the issue of Israel and Palestinian rights," said CODEPINK co-director Ariel Gold. "Despite paying mild lip service to the dangers of Israel annexing parts of the West Bank, Biden's positions are to the right of where the Obama administration was. Palestinians have been campaigning for over 70 years for their basic rights and freedoms. It is far past time for the U.S. to stop carrying water for the Israeli government and instead support justice and equality for all people."
The shift in American opinion towards Israel and the Palestinian struggle was best captured in two key moments in the past year. One was at the March 2019 policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, when eight out of ten Democratic candidates refused to attend. The second was at the October 2019 J Street conference, when the audience burst into applause after then-candidate Bernie Sanders suggested leveraging the $3.8 billion the U.S. gives to Israel to push Israel towards respecting Palestinian human rights.
When Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign, Joe Biden indicated that he would integrate some of the politics of the progressive wing of the Democratic party in order to reflect the movement the Sanders campaign had built. Unfortunately, as far as Palestinian rights are concerned, Biden has done nothing of the sort.
"Public and media discourse, and crucially, voters' opinions on Israeli violations and Palestinian rights, have dramatically shifted in recent years but too many past and present officials are out of touch, and unaware of those changes," said Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and board member of Jewish Voice for Peace. "Large percentages of key voting blocs want major changes in US policy to match those changing public opinions - and any candidates hoping to win support from young, Black, Democratic, progressive, and increasingly Jewish voters, will ignore those changes at their peril."
The birth of a new phase of the civil rights movement in the United States should also be an impetus for rethinking the role of the United States in supporting repressive policies abroad. "As Americans, we cannot talk about ending the institutional and systemic racism in this country while we enable a system of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories," said Dr. Osama Abuirshaid, National Executive Director of American Muslims for Palestine. "We cannot demand an end to police brutality in our streets without demanding that our government stop financing Israeli brutality with our tax dollars."
The letter, and the full list of signers, can be accessed here, and is also included below.
Dear Vice President Biden,
We write to you as organizations and individuals deeply concerned about the continuing escalation of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people and the urgent need for a different U.S. policy -- one based on the principles of equality and justice for all.
Current U.S. positions supporting, indeed enabling, Israeli government violations are out of touch with voters. A February 2020 Gallup poll found increased support for Palestinians, especially among young people. The same is true for American Jews, who are becoming more and more critical of Israeli government policies and more and more supportive of Palestinian rights.
U.S. foreign policy on Israel/Palestine should be rooted in the same values and principles that are supposed to guide U.S. policy throughout the rest of the world -- respecting human rights and international law, promoting the peaceful resolution of conflicts, supporting diplomacy over military intervention, and utilizing multilateralism and multilateral institutions for dispute resolution. The United States should affirm the right of every human being to live with dignity, equality, freedom, and respect for human rights -- and that should include Palestinians and Israelis.
The United States has directly intervened in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for nearly 30 years (since the 1991 Madrid Conference). It has promoted versions of a two-state solution to that conflict for even longer. It is time to acknowledge that those efforts have failed -- primarily because of U.S. failures to act as an honest broker. Longtime U.S. diplomat, Aaron David Miller, central to the process over several administrations of both parties, said the U.S. role was that of "Israel's lawyer." Providing Israel's government with unlimited diplomatic protection and massive military financing has enabled the country to entrench its occupation, expand its illegal settlements, impose a 13-year-long siege and wage three wars against Gaza, pass laws that officially deny equal rights to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish, all under the veneer of peacemaking.
A new policy with any chance of success requires the United States to abandon its insistence on being the sole mediator of the conflict. The United Nations, as well as regional actors such as the European Union and the Arab League, should be involved as full and equal partners in a process aimed at ensuring full equality and rights for all people now living in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
What many American voters, including many Jewish voters, young voters, and voters of color are looking for in presidential candidates includes:
* explicit opposition to Israel's occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its unlawful blockade (abetted by Egypt) of the Gaza Strip;
* recognition of Israel's obligations toward the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, a protected population, according to international law;
* support for conditioning U.S. military funding to Israel on an end to Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and adherence to all relevant U.S. laws, including the Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Law;
* support for H.R. 2407, the "Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act," sponsored by Representative Betty McCollum, to ensure that no U.S. dollars contribute to Israel's a military detention, interrogation, abuse and/or other ill-treatment of Palestinian children;
* calling on Israel's government to repeal the Jewish Nation-State Basic Law and to ensure that Palestinian citizens of Israel and other non-Jewish citizens in the country enjoy equal rights with Jewish citizens by passing a basic law guaranteeing those rights;
* opposition to the use of U.S. security assistance against protected populations, including in Gaza, and calling on Israel's government to protect civilians from settler violence;
* support for Palestinian refugee rights consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions;
* promise to relocate the U.S. Embassy back to Tel Aviv until such time as the international status of East Jerusalem has changed from its current status as occupied territory;
* a promise to provide full U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court's investigation into alleged war crimes committed by all sides in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip;
* rejection of U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any territories now occupied, absent an internationally recognized final agreement with the Palestinians.
* a promise to reduce regional tensions and enhance regional stability by restoring U.S. support for and participation in the Iranian nuclear agreement (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
We ask that you take these issues to heart and revise your policy positions accordingly. We look forward to communicating with you and your campaigns.
Sincerely,
CURRENT SIGNERS (6/18/2020):
Letter to Trump here.
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) 275-7232"Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," said one campaigner.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday implicitly confirmed that New START—a key arms control treaty between the United States and Russia—will expire Thursday, prompting renewed demands for what one group called "a more coherent approach from the Trump administration" toward nuclear nonproliferation.
Asked about the impending expiration of New START during a Wednesday press conference, Rubio said he didn't "have any announcement" on the matter, and that President Donald Trump "will opine on it later."
"Obviously, the president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile," Rubio said.
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳 Secretary of State Marco Rubio:
I don't have any announcement on New START right now. I think the President will opine on it later.
The President has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that… pic.twitter.com/8pxi3bfdsy
— Visioner (@visionergeo) February 4, 2026
New START, signed in 2010, committed the United States and Russia to halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers in their arsenals. While the treaty did not limit the size of the countries' actual nuclear arsenals, proponents pointed to its robust verification regime and other transparency features as mutually beneficial highlights of the agreement.
“We have known that New START would end for 15 years, but no one has shown the necessary leadership to be prepared for its expiration,” said John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former longtime State Department official.
“The treaty limited the number of nuclear weapons the United States and Russia could have, but perhaps more importantly, New START also provided each country with unprecedented insights into the other’s arsenal so that Washington and Moscow could make decisions based on real information rather than speculation," Erath added.
The last remaining major treaty limiting the world's two largest nuclear arsenals expires Feb. 5. Does this mean the end of nuclear arms control? Not necessarily. Read our statement.armscontrolcenter.org/statement-on...
[image or embed]
— Nukes of Hazard (@nukesofhazard.bsky.social) February 4, 2026 at 2:04 PM
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Wednesday that "the end of New START requires a more coherent approach from the Trump administration."
"If President Trump and Secretary Rubio are serious, they should make a serious proposal for bilateral (not trilateral) talks with Beijing," he asserted. "Despite Trump’s talk about involving China in nuclear negotiations, there is no indication that Trump or his team have taken the time to propose risk reduction or arms control talks with China since returning to office in 2025."
Kimball continued:
Furthermore, there is no reason why the United States and Russia should not and cannot continue, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin suggested on September 22, to respect the central limits of New START and begin the hard work of negotiating a new framework agreement involving verifiable limits on strategic, intermediate-range, and short-range nuclear weapons, as well as strategic missile defenses.
At the same time, if he is serious about involving China in “denuclearization” talks, he could and should invite [Chinese President Xi Jinping] when they meet later this year, to agree to regular bilateral talks on risk reduction and arms control involving senior Chinese and US officials.
"With the end of New START, Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," Kimball added.
Erath lamented that "with New START’s expiration, we have not only lost unprecedented verification measures that our military and decision-makers depended on, but we have ended more than five decades of painstaking diplomacy that successfully avoided nuclear catastrophe."
"Agreements preceding New START helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War,"
he noted. "Now, both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War."
Last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board advanced its symbolic Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global thermonuclear annihilation, citing developments including failure to extend New START, China's growing arsenal, and Russian weapons tests—to which Trump has vowed to respond in kind.
"The good news is," said Erath, is that "the end of New START does not have to mean the end of nuclear arms control."
"While New START can’t be extended beyond today, Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could decide to respect the numerical limits the treaty set on nuclear arsenals," he explained. "They could also resume the treaty’s data exchanges and on-site inspections, in addition to implementing verification measures from other previous arms control treaties."
"Further, they could instruct their administrations to begin immediate talks on a new treaty to cover existing and novel systems and potentially bring in other nuclear powers, like China," Erath continued. "Meanwhile, Congress could—and should—fund nonproliferation and global monitoring efforts while refusing to fund dangerous new nuclear weapons systems."
Last December, US Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) reintroduced the bicameral Hastening Arms Limitation Talks (HALT) Act, "legislation outlining a vision for a 21st century freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons."
"The Doomsday Clock is at 85 seconds to midnight," Markey—who co-chairs the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group—said Wednesday ahead of a press conference with HALT Act co-sponsors. "We need to replace New START now."
"Every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota," the congresswoman said. "The terror campaign must stop."
President Donald Trump's "border czar," Tom Homan, announced Wednesday that 700 immigration agents are leaving Minnesota, but with around 2,000 expected to remain there, Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose district includes Minneapolis, declared that the drawdown is "not enough."
As part of Trump's "Operation Metro Surge," agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have invaded multiple Minnesota cities, including Minneapolis and Saint Paul, and committed various acts of violence, such as fatally shooting Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
In a pair of social media posts about Homan's announcement, Omar argued that "every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota. The terror campaign must stop."
"This occupation has to end!" she added, also renewing her call to abolish ICE—a position adopted by growing shares of federal lawmakers and the public as Trump's mass deportation agenda has hit Minnesota's Twin Cities, the Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, multiple cities in Maine, and other communities across the United States.
In Congress, where a fight over funding for CBP and ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, is playing out, Omar has stood with other progressives in recent votes. The bill signed by Trump on Tuesday only funds DHS through the middle of the month, though Republicans gave ICE an extra $75 billion in last year's budget package.
During an on-camera interview with NBC News' Tom Llamas, Trump said that the reduction of agents came from him. After the president's factually dubious rant about crime rates, Llamas asked what he had learned from the operation in Minnesota. Trump responded: "I learned that maybe we can use a little bit of a softer touch. But you still have to be tough."
"We're really dealing with really hard criminals," Trump added. Despite claims from him and others in the administration that recent operations have targeted "the worst of the worst," data have repeatedly shown that most immigrants detained by federal officials over the past year don't have any criminal convictions.
Operation Metro Surge has been met with persistent protests in Minnesota and solidarity actions across the United States. Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Wednesday that "the limited drawdown of ICE agents from Minnesota is not a concession. It is a direct response to Minnesotans standing up to unconstitutional federal overreach."
"Minnesotans are winning against this attack on all our communities by organizing, resisting, and defending our constitutional rights. But this moment should not be a victory lap," Hussein continued. "It must instead be a call to continue pushing for justice. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal immigration agents remain uninvestigated, and communities and prosecutors alike have raised grave concerns about violations of their oaths and the Constitution. This is not the time to pull back, it is the time to deepen our resilience, increase our support for one another, and keep fighting for our democracy and accountability until justice is served."
The Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs—Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, and Brett Edkins, of Stand Up America—similarly said that "Tom Homan's announcement that 700 federal immigration agents will be withdrawn from Minnesota is more a minor concession than a meaningful policy shift."
"The vast majority—approximately 2,000 federal agents—remain deployed in the state, and enforcement operations continue unabated," the co-chairs stressed. "This token gesture does nothing to address the ongoing terror families face or the constitutional crisis this administration's actions have created."
“The killings of Minnesotans demand real accountability," they added. "Families torn apart by raids and alleged constitutional violations deserve justice. Real change means the complete withdrawal of all federal forces conducting these operations in Minnesota, full accountability for the deaths and violations that have occurred, and congressional action to restore the rule of law. The American people deserve better than political theater when constitutional rights hang in the balance."
On Tuesday, the state and national ACLU asked the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to "use its early warning and urgent action procedure in response to the human rights crisis following the Trump administration's deployment of federal forces" in the Twin Cities.
"The Trump administration's ongoing immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota are being carried out by thousands of masked federal agents in military gear who are ignoring basic constitutional and human rights of Minnesotans," said Teresa Nelson, legal director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "Their targeting of our Somali and Latino communities threatens Minnesotans’ most fundamental rights, and it has spread fear among immigrant communities and neighborhoods."
"When Big Pharma gets richer off the back of a grandmother struggling to pay for cancer medication, the system is broken."
Led by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, four Democratic senators on Wednesday outlined plans to reduce the costs of prescription drugs after President Donald Trump claimed he would do so—only to allow Big Pharma companies to delay negotiating lower prices and secure "zero commitments" from top executives on making lifesaving medications more affordable for millions of Americans.
“There is no greater fraud than Donald J. Trump when it comes to lower drug prices,” Wyden (D-Ore.) said. “Our doors are wide open to anybody who wants to take the bold next step forward on lowering drug costs for Americans."
Along with a "flash report" on Trump's "broken promises" regarding his pledge to bring drug prices down “to levels nobody ever thought was possible," Wyden sent a Dear Colleague letter to Democratic senators regarding his committee's plans to follow through with lowering costs.
"Finance Committee minority staff will dedicate substantial time and effort this year to developing the next generation of healthcare solutions that lower costs for American families," Wyden wrote. "These solutions will rein in Big Pharma’s outrageous price increases, lower costs for consumers, guarantee predictability for patients, and reduce wasteful government spending that pads the profits of big corporations. Alongside the co-signers of this letter, I invite you to be a part of this bold vision."
The letter, co-signed by Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), notes that "the only concrete drug pricing policy Trump enacted within the past year was a price hike for the biggest blockbuster cancer drugs on Earth, giving an $8.8 billion windfall to the pharmaceutical industry."
In contrast, the senators wrote, the Senate Finance Committee will develop policies to incorporate international pricing models into the Medicare drug price negotiation framework, including by allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to consider international prices as a factor or penalize drugmakers when pricing for US customers exceeds international benchmarks.
“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it."
The committee will also work to end Republican "blockbuster drug bailouts from negotiation," like the ones included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that shielded several high-priced drugs—including the cancer drug Keytruda—from Medicare price negotiations.
"The Republican budget bill contained a nearly $9 billion sweetheart deal that benefits the biggest drug companies by delaying or exempting some lifesaving medications from negotiation," reads the Democrats' flash report.
Gallego said that "when Big Pharma gets richer off the back of a grandmother struggling to pay for cancer medication, the system is broken."
"That’s what this is all about: Big Pharma execs sitting in their fancy corner offices profiting off of sick, working-class Americans,” the senator said. “We are not going to accept an America where millions of families live in fear of getting sick and needing to fill a prescription. We are going to fight and fight hard for a healthcare system that does what Donald Trump never did: actually lower costs for working families.”
The lawmakers emphasized that even if manufacturers are forced to lower drug prices, patients are not currently guaranteed to directly benefit, because as much as 45% of the $5.4 trillion the US spends on healthcare annually is "absorbed by middlemen such as insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and drug distributors."
"Healthcare middlemen profit when drug costs are high because they make money off of drug margin or payments that are linked to the price of a drug, ripping off patients who pay more than they should. Medicare Part D and the patients it serves should stop footing the bill for inflated drug prices and instead pay for drugs in a more transparent manner that reduces middleman margin," wrote the senators.
The Finance Committee will develop policies to eliminate abuses in the prescription drug supply chain including "egregious drug price markups," and to ensure that patient cost-sharing on drugs more closely aligns with the costs to plans and PBMs.
Finally, the Democrats said they would work to fix the "unmitigated disaster" that Trump and Kennedy have been "for innovation and drug development," as the administration has proposed slashing the National Institutes of Health budget by 40% and has cut off access to treatment for an estimated 74,000 patients who were enrolled in NIH clinical trials.
The Finance Committee, they said, plans to create new incentives for innovation and drug development, including through the tax code.
In their flash report, the Democrats wrote that while failing to force Big Pharma to the negotiating table to save money for Americans, Trump "has been parading Big Pharma executives through the White House, claiming to be cutting cost-saving deals with these corporations."
"One look under the hood reveals the truth: Trump is giving them a pass on tariffs, while receiving zero commitments about how they will lower costs for taxpayers and patients," they wrote. "Donald Trump is getting fleeced by Big Pharma CEOs, and Americans are going to foot the bill."
Welch said that the president "loves to talk a big game and make promises to working families about lowering prescription drug prices. But in reality, his administration is handling this like a PR problem: They’ve got to keep moving and talking about it, but then do nothing to really address the crisis."
“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it," said Welch. "We’re going to lower healthcare costs and ensure everyone can access affordable, lifesaving, and pain-relieving medication.”