

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.

Today, Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) introduced the historic Public Banking Act, which allows for the creation of state and locally administered public banks by establishing the Public Bank Grant program administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board which would provide grants for the formation, chartering and capitalization of public banks. It also codifies that public banks may be members of the Federal Reserve. Public banks can offer lower debt costs to city and state governments, fund public infrastructure projects, and encourage entrepreneurship by providing loans to small businesses at lower interest rates and with lower fees. The legislation also creates a pathway for state-chartered banks to gain federal recognition and recognizes a framework for public banks to interact with Fed Accounts, postal banking, and Digital Dollar platforms. As such, the passage of The Public Banking Act would provide a much-needed financial lifeline to states and municipalities, as well as unbanked and underbanked residents, that have been left in dire straits by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Public Banking Act is the latest effort of Congresswomen Tlaib and Ocasio-Crortez to secure the aid state and local governments need--they previously wrote to the Federal Reserve urging it to do more to support state and local governments, adding to criticism that the central bank is being too cautious in some of the programs it set up to help the economy during the pandemic. With a current financial system that has forced billions from accessing the most basic financial tools and cash-strapped cities and states staring down plunging tax revenue and climbing pandemic-related costs, the Congresswomen believe it's time to finally enact banking as a public utility, a proven model worldwide, to keep money local and cut costs by eliminating Wall Street middlemen, shareholders and high-paid executives.
The legislation also:
"From overdraft fees to charging for having a checking account period, Wall Street-run banks put key financial services out of reach for many of my residents who are struggling to make ends meet," Congresswoman Tlaib said. "It's long past time to open doors for people who have been systematically shut out and provide a better option for those grappling with the costs of simply trying to participate in an economy they have every right to--but has been rigged against them. The COVID-19 pandemic has also plunged city and state governments into a financial crisis unlike any other they've ever experienced--and public banks could offer a much more tenable option for dealing with their debts at a time when they need it most. It's for all of this that I'm proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez to finally provide this crucial financial lifeline to our states, municipalities, and folks who are unbanked and underbanked."
"I am proud to partner with Rep. Tlaib on this monumental bill. Public banks are uniquely able to address the economic inequality and structural racism exacerbated by the banking industry's discriminatory policies and predatory practices," Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said. "The creation of public banks will also facilitate the use of public resources to construct a myriad of public goods including affordable housing and local renewable energy projects. Public banks empower states and municipalities to establish new channels of public investment to help solve systemic crises."
In the short term, public banks would be a seamless and effective way to deliver relief funds to all eligible recipients. In the longer term, public banks would remedy long-standing systemic problems with our banking system that have disproportionately burdened low-income communities, ultimately bringing about transformational change to the American monetary-financial system. That's, in part, why The Public Banking Act has garnered the support of nine of the Congresswomen's colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives: Reps. Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (IL-04), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Al Green (TX-9), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Barbara Lee (CA-13), and Jan Schakowsky (IL-9). 29 organizations that have long advocated for the public banking system it would make possible, including the California Public Banking Alliance (CBPA), Take on Wall Street, Americans for Financial Reform, Beneficial State Foundation, Communications Workers of America, Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Action, Americans for Financial Reform, California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Popular Democracy, Community Change, Farm Aid, Institute for Policy Studies, Jobs With Justice, NJ Citizen Action, Oil Change International, Oil Change International, People's Action, Strong Economy for All, UNITE HERE, Working Families Party, Democracy Collaborative, ACRE, and Public Citizen, also support the landmark legislation.
"The public needs an alternative to Wall Street. By providing federal recognition and a regulatory framework for public banks, this bill gives cities and states a proven model that will facilitate investment in an equitable recovery and a sustainable economy," CBPA Legislative Team Organizer David Jette said. "We cannot face the crises of our day with the financial infrastructure that led us to those same crises. We need accountable, publicly chartered banks that invest in the well being of the many, not the few. This bill gets us there, and not a moment too soon."
"As we learned recently from the Paycheck Protection Program, when you pay big Wall Street banks to provide public goods, they inevitably reward themselves and their friends at the expense of white, Black, and brown working families," Take on Wall Street Campaign Director Porter McConnell said. "Take on Wall Street supports the Public Banking Act because public banks can create jobs and boost the local economy, save cities and states money, and lend counter-cyclically to blunt the impact of Wall Street booms and busts. We deserve a financial system for working families, not the big banks, and this bill moves us closer to that reality."
"We are excited to see the introduction of the Public Banking Act that scales out the leadership of our members Asian Pacific Environmental Network and People Organizing Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (PODER) demonstrated in the passage of public banking in California," Climate Justice Alliance Policy Coordinator Anthony Rogers-Wright said. "We are very excited to see our values regarding the need for a rapid Fossil Fuel phaseout represented in this bill. More evidence is pointing to the fact that, economically, Big Oil is in big trouble and the people don't want the money they keep in their banks utilized to bailout or finance an industry that's killing people and planet. Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib have the gratitude of frontline communities nationwide."
"The federal government, which issues the U.S. dollar, is uniquely responsible for the health and character of the American financial system," said Willamette University Assistant Professor of Law Rohan Grey said. "Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's bill critically combines Congressional leadership and vision with strong and genuine support for grassroots economic democracy."
"As a strong supporter of financial innovation in the public interest, I applaud the offices of Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on the introduction of the Public Banking Act," Public Money Action, Ltd Director and Yale Law School Associate Research Scholar Raul Carrillo, Esq. said. "By facilitating the steady development of public options for 21st century financial services at the federal, state, and local levels, they are not only helping communities divest and invest public money as they see fit, but creating higher standards for equitable financial inclusion across the board."
The full text of the Public Banking Act can be read here.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for New York's 14th congressional district.
(718) 662-5970"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.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.