

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.

Madison Tang, CODEPINK China campaign coordinator, madison@codepink.org
Carley Towne, CODEPINK Co-Director, carley@codepink.org
CODEPINK, a women-led peace organization, calls on Congress to reject President Biden's record-high FY 2022 military budget of $753 billion, a $ 13 billion increase over the Trump administration's previous spendthrift military budget. In supporting a minimum 10% reduction in Pentagon spending, CODEPINK noted the annual savings could eradicate hunger and homelessness each year in the United States.
CODEPINK, a women-led peace organization, calls on Congress to reject President Biden's record-high FY 2022 military budget of $753 billion, a $ 13 billion increase over the Trump administration's previous spendthrift military budget. In supporting a minimum 10% reduction in Pentagon spending, CODEPINK noted the annual savings could eradicate hunger and homelessness each year in the United States.
"To spend nearly a trillion dollars to prepare for war pulls back the curtain on the Biden administration's professed interest in lifting people out of poverty," says Carley Towne, CODEPINK co-director. "While millions of Americans are steeped in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, facing eviction and struggling to pay medical bills amidst an ongoing health pandemic and recession, the Administration hurls taxpayer dollars at an increasingly privatized for-profit war industry."
Biden's budget includes upwards of $30 billion for new nuclear weapons slated to cost $1.7 trillion over the next decades, billions for the F-35 fighter jet, a boondoggle with an eventual $1-2 trillion price tag, $17.4 billion for an unnecessary Space Force and at least $51.5 billion annually to maintain over 800 overseas bases and establish new ones in the Indo-Pacific, where the Biden administration's pivot to Asia sets us on a reckless and dangerous course toward war with China.
President Biden's final Pentagon budget request signals alarming continuity with the Trump Administration which, over the course of four years, increased the Pentagon budget by $133 billion with bipartisan Congressional approval.
In light of the Biden Administration's announcement that the United States will be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by September 2021, the Pentagon budget should reflect a corresponding $50 billion reduction.
Instead, Biden's proposed Pentagon budget of $753 would provide the Department of Defense with more money than the Departments of State, Justice, Education, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined.
At the same time that Biden is set to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Biden and Congress are using China as the justification for this massive increase in military spending by framing China as a danger to the U.S. and its allies. Biden's proposed Pentagon budget identifies China as a "top challenge," and Secretary of Defense Austin has stated, "China is our pacing threat." In reality, the inflated threat of China's military pales in comparison to the United States military: the U.S. has over 800 overseas military bases, hundreds of which surround the borders of China; China currently has only one official overseas military base, located in Djibouti.
"This same tactic of threat inflation led us to the U.S.'s catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003. The consequences of that intervention were not only horrific overseas but also proved deadly and harmful for Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Muslim-perceived communities," said Madison Tang, coordinator of CODEPINK's China Is Not Our Enemy campaign. "Today, we are already seeing the consequences of this escalation of war with China in the form of Sinophobic violence that targets Asians and Asian Americans of various ethnicities across the U.S. Anti-Asian violence has increased 194% in the first quarter of 2021 compared to 2020, according to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. This pattern of heightened xenophobia and scapegoating of a minority group as a corollary to U.S. imperialist wars is not new, and must be challenged."
"This push for rearmament, including hundreds of new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine mounted tactical nuclear weapons, comes amid concern the Biden administration's heated anti-China rhetoric and policies could plunge us into a nuclear war," said Marcy Winograd, coordinator of CODEPINK Congress, a campaign to mobilize co-sponsors for progressive foreign policy legislation. "There is no law of gravity, however, that compels President Biden or Congress to continue funding the drive for nuclear rearmament or global omnicide."
At the end of the day, the Federal budget is up to Congress to decide, not the President. We call on Congress to reduce the Pentagon budget by at least 10% and instead invest in what will truly make us safe: universal healthcare, good jobs, and addressing the climate crisis.
Act Now:
It's now more important than ever to contact your representatives and send them the CODEPINK guide to Pentagon budget cuts to demand that they show their support to reduce the Pentagon budget and invest in human needs!
Additional Quotes and Reactions on Biden's Proposed Pentagon Budget from the International Community:
"The way the US budget overemphasizes the military hurts the American people and the world. A tiny fraction of the money that President Biden is proposing for the military budget would save the lives of millions of children in Yemen. Wouldn't that be a better investment in the future than more bombs, warships and nuclear weapons?" - Aisha Jumaan, President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
"This enormous Pentagon budget will only lead to more military conflicts, more bloodshed, more grief. We saw enough of that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years. It's time to invest in peace." - Basir Bita, local activist in Kabul Afghanistan
"There are many places where the U.S. could and should spend more money. At least it can start by paying for some of the huge damages it has caused to the people in this country and abroad in the last several centuries. Increasing the military budget, however, only makes everything worse." - Dr. Xu, Professor of Economics at John Jay College, CUNY, former Professor of Economics at Renmin University of China, and Chinese citizen
"An increase in the US defense budget will mean the deployment and/or testing of US weapons in South Korea, which endangers the lives of residents near US bases. US military buildup has led to a perpetual arms race including nuclear weapons and nuclear threats in Northeast Asia. The deployment of the US THAAD missile defense system in South Korea in 2017 has raised tension in the region and is opposed by many South Koreans. Villagers near the new THAAD base have been protesting everyday against the illegal deployment. I join in the call to the Biden administration to reduce the US defense budget and invest in human security: Withdraw tension-raising weapon systems from Korea and end the more than 70-year-old Korean War with a peace agreement." - YouKyoung Ko, a consultant for Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and women-led Korea Peace Now! Campaign, and a standing committee member of the Korea Peace Appeal Campaign.
"The United States military continues to negatively impact the lives of people who have never consented to the U.S. military presence, particularly in island nations in the Asia Pacific region such as Hawaii, Okinawa, and the Marianas. The military presence places the people of these nations in mortal danger of annihilation, as was demonstrated in 2018 via the false ballistic missile alert in Hawaii, proving that the U.S. military is incapable of protecting us. Furthermore, the military creates a burden in numerous other ways, such as through crime, pollution, and economic deprivation." - Robert Kajiwara, founder of the Peace for Okinawa Coalition
"We, members of the International Women's Network against Militarism, unequivocally oppose the proposed Biden Pentagon budget. Spending nearly 50% of the US discretionary budget (more than the next 10 countries combined) demonstrates the destructive priorities of a society committed more to world military domination than care of its people and the natural environment. Increased militarization in the US and abroad will only create more insecurities, fear, and destruction--both at home and abroad especially in places of massive US military presence such as Okinawa and Guam. We urge the Biden-Harris administration to withdraw the current proposal and formulate one that will ensure full healthcare, quality education, and environmental protection," -International Women's Network Against Militarism
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"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."
"The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations," says one Georgetown law professor.
Two federal judges have said the Trump administration cannot use the government shutdown to suspend food assistance for 42 million Americans. But hours into Saturday, when payments were due to be disbursed, President Donald Trump appears to be defying the ruling, potentially leaving millions unable to afford this month's grocery bills.
A pair of federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled Friday that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) freeze on benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, was unlawful and that the department must use money from a contingency fund of $6 billion to pay for at least a portion of the roughly $8 billion meant to be disbursed this month.
“There is no doubt that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation,” said US District Judge McConnell of Rhode Island in his oral ruling. “The shutdown of the government through funding doesn’t do away with SNAP. It just does away with the funding of it. There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations.”
McConnell added: “There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family."
SNAP benefits are available to people whose monthly incomes fall below 130% of the federal poverty line. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children. According to USDA research, cited by the Washington Post, those who receive SNAP benefits rely on it for 63% of their groceries, with the poorest, who make below 50% of the poverty line, relying on it for as much as 80%.
McConnell shot down the administration's contention that the contingency funds may be needed for some other hypothetical emergency in the future, saying "It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed."
While the judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that Trump merely had to use the contingency funds to fund as much of the program as possible, McConnell went further, saying that in addition, they had to tap other sources of funding to disburse benefits in full, and do so "as soon as possible." Both judges gave the administration until Monday to provide updates on how it planned to follow the ruling.
However, after the ruling on Friday, Trump insisted on social media that "government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do."
He added: "I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible."
Attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu pointed out in Common Dreams that, "until a few days ago, even the Trump administration agreed that these funds should be used to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown."
On September 30, the day before the shutdown began, the USDA posted a 55-page "Lapse of Funding" plan to its website, which plainly stated that if the government were to shut down, "the department will continue operations related to... core nutrition safety net programs.”
But this week, USDA abruptly deleted the file and posted a new memo that concocted a new legal reality out of whole cloth, stating that “due to Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), approximately 42 million individuals will not receive SNAP benefits come November 1st.”
As Mogulescu notes: "The new memo cited absolutely no law supporting its position. Instead, it made up a rule claiming that the 'contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exist.'"
Sharon Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who previously served as an official in the White House Office of Management, said last week that it's "unequivocally false" that the administration's hands are tied.
"I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families," Parrott said. "Even at this late date, the professionals at the Department of Agriculture and in states can make this happen. And, to state the obvious, benefits that are a couple of days delayed are far more help to families than going without any help at all."
She added: "The administration itself admits these reserves are available for use. It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds. Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage."
In hopes of pressuring Democrats to abandon their demands that Congress extend a critical Affordable Care Act tax credit and prevent health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for more than 20 million Americans, Republicans have sought to use the shutdown to inflict maximum pain on voters.
Trump has attempted to carry out mass layoffs of government workers, which have been halted by a federal judge. Meanwhile, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has stripped funding from energy and transportation infrastructure projects aimed at blue states and cities.
"Terminating SNAP is a choice, and an overtly unlawful one at that," says David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. "The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations.”
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.