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.

In case you missed it, yesterday evening The Washington Post released a deep-dive into the explicit dangers of the possibility that the Biden administration may not have a single confirmed Cabinet official on the first day of its tenure. This would be the first time that a president enters the office without at least part of his national security team in place since the Cold War.
Americans across the country overwhelmingly voted in support of President-elect Biden and his agenda to put American workers and families ahead of special interests. The historically diverse team of men and women comprising Biden's Cabinet appointees must be ready to hit the ground running on day one to begin the daunting task of cleaning up after Trump's messes, getting the pandemic under control, and rebuilding the economy so that it works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
Wednesday's sobering, Trump-motivated attack on the U.S. Capitol is just the latest crisis highlighting the need for a trial-tested, qualified, and quickly-confirmed Cabinet in the interest of national security, public health, and the democratic principles that have been stripped and shaken over the past four years.
Washington Post: Biden in danger of having no confirmed Cabinet secretaries on first day of presidency
By Paul Kane, Karoun Demirjian and Anne Gearan
Jan. 7, 2021 at 8:18 p.m. EST
President-elect Joe Biden's incoming administration is in danger of not having a single Cabinet official confirmed on Inauguration Day, upsetting a tradition going back to the Cold War of ensuring the president enters office with at least part of his national security team in place.
Delays in Congress, caused primarily by runoff elections in Georgia for Senate seats that Democrats flipped this week and the arcane procedures needed to get the new chamber up and running, have sparked deep concern among Biden's top advisers. They are now mapping out contingency plans to install acting secretaries in most, if not all, Cabinet posts, in case Biden's nominees are unable to secure Senate backing by Jan. 20, according to those familiar with discussions.
"The American people rightfully expect the Senate to confirm his crisis-tested, qualified, history-making cabinet nominees as quickly as possible," Ned Price, the national security spokesman for the Biden transition team, said in a statement. "With so much at stake, we can't afford to waste any time when it comes to leading the response to the deadly coronavirus crisis, putting Americans back to work, and protecting our national security."
For decades, Senate Republicans and Democrats have shelved their political differences to ensure a seamless transition between administrations, especially in the departments responsible for safeguarding the country against foreign and domestic threats. At a time when the United States is reeling from a massive cyberespionage campaign of presumed Russian origin, Iran's resumed uranium enrichment, the deadly pandemic and volatile domestic unrest, the need for continuous leadership is considered especially paramount.
To date, the Senate Republican committee chairs -- who will remain in control until Jan. 20 -- have scheduled only one confirmation hearing for a Biden nominee: that of Lloyd J. Austin III, the president-elect's choice for defense secretary. That lags well behind the pace of previous transfers of power between administrations, and many Republicans increasingly believe it will be impossible to expedite things.
The scenario would set up an unprecedented moment in which every Cabinet post would have an acting secretary, with either the top career official in a given federal agency taking the helm or some temporary official appointed by Biden.
The Senate Armed Services Committee said Thursday that it would hold a confirmation hearing for Austin, a retired Army general, on Jan. 19. The panel also announced that it would hold a hearing next week -- while the House and Senate are out of Washington -- to prepare a waiver allowing Austin to serve as the civilian leader of the Defense Department, despite having been retired from active military service for less than the required seven years.
That schedule could allow the Senate to squeeze in Austin's confirmation just in time for Biden's inauguration. But the House must also approve Austin's waiver for him to take office -- and as of yet, that chamber has issued no similar plans for its consideration. The House Armed Services Committee, which has requested to meet with Austin, has not scheduled its hearing either.
Should lawmakers fail to remedy the impasse, Biden will become only the second newly inaugurated president in the past 45 years to not have his choice for secretary of defense in place on the first day, according to Senate records. George H.W. Bush, in 1989, is the only other president not to immediately get his Pentagon chief confirmed, as his initial nominee, John Tower, fell into a bitter confirmation fight that ended in defeat.
The problem is not limited to the Pentagon. In years past, the Senate has scrambled to furnish incoming presidents with some combination of their picks to lead the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community -- all of whom this year are in danger of being stuck in limbo when Biden takes office.
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, secretary of state nominee Antony Blinken's confirmation stalled amid a partisan dispute over whether the candidate has furnished the panel with satisfactory answers to prehearing questionnaires. Blinken submitted his paperwork to the panel on Dec. 31, according to aides familiar with the process, and has yet to meet with the vast majority of the panel's members -- a situation that has given rise to partisan finger-pointing about who is to blame, and insinuations from Democrats that the GOP chairman, Sen. James E. Risch of Idaho, is intentionally drawing out the process.
On the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, there has been similarly little action on Alejandro Mayorkas, the nominee for secretary of homeland security. The process has been complicated to a transfer of power on the GOP side between outgoing Chairman Ron Johnson (Wis.) and ranking Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio).
Despite the confusion, Senate Democrats have argued that the Republican leaders of those panels could make a gesture of good faith by scheduling committee hearings with the nominees. Now that the results of Georgia are known, it is possible that the incoming Democratic chairs could try to take matters into their own hands and call meetings to discuss the pending nominations, with or without the consent of the outgoing GOP chairs.
But until the panels are officially formed and blessed by the full Senate -- which cannot happen until Georgia certifies that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won their elections and they are formally seated in Washington -- no committee can report out any nomination to the floor for confirmation.
The Biden transition team has taken pains to ensure that if there are delays, they aren't coming from its end. A senior Biden transition official said that all outstanding financial disclosures for key nominees will be transmitted to the relevant Senate committees by the end of the week.
Yet even in committees that have not hit political or organizational snags, the task of delivering Biden a full national security team has been selectively hampered by the transition team's decision-making process.
Democratic and Republican aides on the Senate Intelligence Committee have expressed total confidence that they will find a way to confirm Avril D. Haines as director of national Intelligence by Inauguration Day. But Biden has yet to name a director for the Central Intelligence Agency, also traditionally considered a priority post.
On President Trump's Inauguration Day in 2017, the Senate convened and confirmed Jim Mattis and John F. Kelly as secretaries of defense and homeland security, and took an initial procedural vote on Mike Pompeo's nomination to be CIA director, easily confirming him three days later. Even that slight delay on Pompeo outraged Republicans who said it endangered national security, led by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"Why the hell don't we just go ahead and give the president his national security team when we need it more than any time in recent history?" McCain said Jan. 20 in a speech.
On Jan. 20, 2009, Democrats had cried foul when Republicans declined to confirm Hillary Clinton as secretary of state until the second day of President Barack Obama's administration, despite confirming six other Cabinet nominees on Day One.
The 50-50 split in today's Senate adds an extra layer of complication, as the Republican committee chairs will remain in control of the chamber's panels until Jan. 20, when Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris is formally sworn in and can break the tie to make Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) the majority leader. The last time a 50-50 Senate hampered the confirmation of a new Cabinet -- for George W. Bush in 2001 -- the two Senate leaders, Republican Trent Lott and Democrat Thomas A. Daschle, hammered out a power-sharing agreement, allowing for early confirmation hearings and a smooth transition.
Aides in both parties acknowledged that the partisan discord of 2021 makes similar comity unlikely. But after Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol, there is increased pressure on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to ensure as smooth a transition as possible -- and that includes giving Biden his national security team.
Watchdog group Accountable.US recently launched the Accountable Senate War Room to fight back against those lawmakers who seek to overturn the will of the people by standing in the way of the smooth transition of power and the swift approval of nominees to ensure that the government can function and deliver results for the American people.
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
"He's a white supremacist," said one critic. "He doesn't hide it."
US President Donald Trump was accused Friday of espousing white supremacist ideology after he blamed the "genetics" of Muslim immigrants who commit crimes like Thursday's assault on a Michigan synagogue, while calling for their exclusion from the United States.
"Well, it's been going on for a long time. It's a disgrace. They're sick, they're really demented people," Trump said during a call-in interview with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade. "They come into the country, they sneak in."
Trump was responding to a question about recent attacks by people who happen to be Muslims, including Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, who was stabbed to death by a cadet at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia after fatally shooting instructor Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, and Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, who was shot dead by security guards at the Temple Israel synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan after crashing his vehicle into the building.
Neither Jalloh nor Ghazali "snuck" into the country. Both were naturalized US citizens. Jalloh, originally from Sierra Leone, was a former National Guardsman. Ghazali had recently lost two of his brothers and other relatives to an Israeli airstrike in his native Lebanon.
"They’re sick people, and a lot of them were let in here. They shouldn’t have been let in," Trump told Kilmeade. "Others are just bad. They go bad. Something wrong—there’s something wrong there. The genetics are not exactly, they’re not exactly your genetics."
Trump has made many racist statements and has occasionally invoked what critics say is the language of eugenics, a debunked pseudoscience embraced by many white supremacists. He has also boasted about his own "much better blood."
While running for reelection, Trump echoed Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler's screed against "poisoning" by an "influx of foreign blood," declaring during a December 2023 campaign rally in New Hampshire that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood" of the country.
"Trump is an old-school eugenicist nativist. He actually is fine with immigrants as long as they have the right 'genes,'" said David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, in response to Friday's interview. "This argument was the basis of the creation of the restrictive US immigration system 100 years ago."
Trump has previously said that he wants more immigrants from countries like Norway and not from what he called "shithole" nations in the Global South. His second administration has effectively ended refugee admissions—with the notable exception of white South Africans, the only people in the world allowed into the United States as refugees since last October, according to US Department of State data.
Progressive journalist Alex Cole said on X: "Imagine being the grandson of immigrants—who dyes his hair, paints his face orange, and wears lifts—lecturing the country about 'genetics.' The irony writes itself."
Trump's political rise began with his promotion of the racist "birther" conspiracy theory falsely positing that then-President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. He launched his 2016 presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants "rapists."
Once in office, Trump enacted a series of restrictions and outright bans on immigration from nations with Muslim majorities.
"He's a white supremacist," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote Friday on X. "He doesn't hide it."
One journalist said that "the massacres are multiplying" as IDF bombing kills hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, and US-Israeli strikes kill and wound thousands of Iranians.
A grieving Lebanese father said he buried his parents, four young daughters, and other relatives on Friday after they were killed by an Israeli airstrike—one of many that have wiped out families in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
"I lost four of my children, four daughters, they were all I had," the unidentified man—whose face and head were visibly injured from what he said was the same Israeli strike—told Al Jadeed TV, an independent Lebanese outlet. "Four daughters: Zainab, Zahraa, Maleeka, and Yasmine."
"And my mother and father," he added. "Praise be to God. God's greatness is abundant."
According to Al Jazeera, the man's brother-in-law and nephew were also killed in the strike.
"The Israeli enemy says every day that it is targeting infrastructure," he told the Qatar-based news network. "Is this the infrastructure?"
It was a devastating scene repeated in other parts of Lebanon, including the south, were a distraught mother on Friday reportedly buried five sons killed by Israeli bombing, and in the Ghobeiry neighborhood of central Beirut earlier this week, when an Israeli airstrike destroyed the home of the Hamdan family, reportedly killing father Ahmad Hamdan, his three daughters, and two grandchildren. As of Tuesday, Hamdan's wife was missing beneath the rubble of their bombed-out home.
As in Gaza—where officials say that more than 2,700 families have been erased from the civil registry during Israel's ongoing genocide and around 6,000 other families have only a single surviving member—entire Lebanese families have been wiped out by Israeli strikes since October 2023.
In one such strike on the Maronite Christian village of Aitou in October 2024, members of four generations of one family were killed, with 22 victims ranging in age from a 4-month-old infant to a 95-year-old great-grandmother.
More than 800,000 Lebanese have also been forcibly displaced by Israel's assault and attendant evacuation orders. On Friday, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders in English, issued a statement highlighting the war's impact on families.
“We are seeing a similarity to what we saw in the past two and a half years in Gaza: broad evacuation orders, constant displacement of thousands of families, and systematic bombing on densely populated areas,” said MSF Lebanon coordinator Lou Cormack. “After 15 months of a fragile ceasefire that failed to stop the violence in Lebanon, families are once again trapped between fleeing or facing bombs.”
Israel says it is attacking Lebanon to stop Hezbollah rocket and other attacks, which have killed dozens of Israeli civilians and wounded even more.
Journalist Lylla Younes told Democracy Now! on Friday that "the massacres are multiplying" in Lebanon, pointing to an Israeli airstrike on a Sidon home that reportedly killed at least 8 people and wounded at least 9 others.
"We saw Syrian refugees, displaced, already killed; 7 killed in a massacre in Tamnin in the Beqaa Valley; a massive massacre in Nabi Chit, also in the Beqaa Valley, when the Israelis tried to do a nighttime incursion by helicopter," Younes said.
Lebanon's Health Ministry said Friday that an Israeli strike on a health center in Bourj Qalawayh, southern Lebanon killed 12 medics.
Lebanese officials said Friday that 773 people—including 103 children—have been killed by Israeli forces since March 2. This, in addition to Israel’s 2023-25 attacks on Lebanon that killed more than 4,000 people, including nearly 800 women and over 300 children.
In Iran, authorities said more than 1,300 civilians have been killed and over 10,000 others injured by US and Israeli bombing since February 28. More than 200 women and over 200 children have reportedly been killed.
Most of the 175 or more Iranians killed in a February 28 cruise missile strike on a girls' school in Minab—an attack that was almost certainly carried out by the United States—were children, according to Iranian government and medical officials and international investigations.
Israeli attacks on Iran during last year’s 12-Day War also killed more than 1,000 Iranians, including 436 civilians, while Iranian counterstrikes killed 28 people in Israel.
In Gaza, 28 months of Israel's assault—for which the country is facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and its prime minister is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity—have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and around 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
US-led wars in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa have resulted in the deaths of more than 900,000 people—including over 400,000 civilians—since 2001, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Stories from families devastated by Israel's war on Lebanon are as common as they are heartbreaking.
"I was sleeping when the Israeli jet bombed the area," one Lebanese teenager told the independent outlet [comra]. "My father, my mother, my sister-in-law, and her children were killed."
"I saw my father torn to pieces," he added. "I wish I had died instead of seeing my father like that."
According to more recent Pentagon figures, it's actually even worse.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren took President Donald Trump to task on Friday for making life "more expensive" with his war in Iran.
"It's costing American taxpayers $1 billion a day to fund this war," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a video posted to her social media accounts. "That is $11,500 every single second."
This is, of course, not an exact amount. The figure is based on a preliminary estimate provided by Pentagon officials to Congress last week, estimating that the war would cost about $1 billion per day.
And so far, the war has actually been even more expensive than Warren initially claimed.
On Tuesday, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon gave a more comprehensive briefing, telling Congress that just the first six days of the war had exceeded $11.3 billion in cost, which puts the price tag at about $1.88 billion per day. That's nearly $21,800 per second.
The Times noted that this was a low-end estimate and that the pricetag did not include many other costs, including those associated with the buildup of military hardware in the region before the war.
Using just these conservative estimates, a live ticker shows that as of Friday afternoon, the estimated cost of the war that began on February 28 is already fast approaching $19 billion, less than two weeks later.
"If we took the money that Donald Trump is demanding to fund the war with Iran and used that money here at home, instead, we could help cover healthcare costs for millions more Americans all across this country," Warren said.
Indeed, an analysis published last week by the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP), based on the $1 billion-per-day figure, found that on an annual basis, the cost of the war is “higher than the appropriated budget of any federal agency except the Pentagon itself."
If all that money were spent domestically, it found, it would be enough to cover the daily costs of federal nutrition assistance for more than 40 million Americans, as well as daily Medicaid costs for the roughly 16 million people expected to lose health coverage due to the Republican budget package that Trump signed into law last year.
As Warren pointed out, calculations of military spending do not even take into account the sharp hikes in gas prices Americans are facing as a result of the war, which has led Iran to retaliate by closing one of the world's largest oil shipment routes, the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the American Automobile Association's (AAA) gas price tracker, US gas prices have leaped to $3.63 per gallon on average as of Friday, up from $2.94 a month ago.
"We haven't seen gas prices jump this much since Russia invaded Ukraine," Warren said. "Some cities in Indiana and Ohio have already seen a jump of over 50 cents a gallon. In Texas and Virginia, prices are up by more than 65 cents."
Citing an image of a Chevron station in Los Angeles posted by a user on TikTok, Warren said: "California is seeing gas prices above $8." According to AAA, the average cost of gas in the state is $5.42.
Despite rising anger from voters—more than 7 in 10 of whom said in a recent Quinnipiac poll that they fear higher oil and gas costs as a result of the war—Trump has said carrying out his objectives in Iran "is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit."
In a post to Truth Social on Thursday, the president framed higher prices as a positive: "The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money," he wrote.
While this may be true for Americans who own oil and gas companies, most do not. For the average American, higher gas prices can raise the cost of transportation sometimes by thousands of dollars per year, cutting into spending on food, rent, medicine, and other essentials.
"For someone who campaigned on lowering costs on day one, Donald Trump is constantly raising the bar for how expensive he can make it to live in this country," Warren said.
Referencing Republican opposition to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that lowered healthcare premiums for more than 20 million Americans, Warren implored viewers to "never forget that Donald Trump said we just can't afford to lower health care costs this year."
"These are about choices," she said, "and Donald Trump is making the wrong ones."