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.

22 Groups Urge Congress: Advance Real Solutions, Not Extremist Nonsense, to Address Fentanyl Crisis
Win Without War joined a diverse coalition of peace, drug policy, and human rights organizations in signing a statement (copied below) opposing H.R. 3205, the ‘Project Precursor Act.’ The bill seeks to label fentanyl a “chemical weapon” by directing the Biden administration to push for its insertion into the international Chemical Weapons Convention.
“The illicit trafficking and use of fentanyl is devastating U.S. communities, and Congress should take measures to address this public health crisis in ways that reduce demand and support people wrestling with drug dependence,” said Stephen Miles, Win Without War’s president. “But normalizing the misguided notion that fentanyl is a ‘chemical weapon’ will only bolster extremist demands to conduct military strikes in Mexico, deepen our failed war on drugs, and weaken a vital international arms control treaty.”
“We’re proud to join a strong coalition in urging Congress to vote down a bad idea with terrible policy implications. Communities in the U.S. and around the world deserve humane and people-first solutions, not dangerous rhetoric in the service of an extremist, pro-war agenda.”
###
JOINT STATEMENT OPPOSING H.R. 3205, THE “PROJECT PRECURSOR ACT”
The undersigned organizations urge the House of Representatives to vote down H.R. 3205, the “Project Precursor Act.” We represent a diverse set of civil society groups with different mandates, missions, and areas of expertise, and not all of us can comment on every facet of H.R. 3205. We are firmly aligned, however, in rejecting the bill’s central aim of labeling fentanyl a “chemical weapon” – a dangerous rhetorical stunt that feeds calls for military action in Mexico, weakens the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and further entrenches a failed, militarized approach to addressing the harms caused by illicit fentanyl trafficking.
Title II of H.R. 3205 states that “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States…to seek to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention to include each covered fentanyl substance on schedule 2 or 3 of the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Pushing to add fentanyl to any of the CWC schedules fundamentally misrepresents the crisis caused by illicit fentanyl use. Fentanyl is not a weapon of war. It is a drug, and while it has some therapeutic uses, it is dealing real and lasting damage to U.S. communities.
Congress adopting this “chemical weapon” rhetoric will only give further oxygen to growing calls for, and even congressional authorization of, U.S. military strikes in Mexico. The executive branch Office of Legal Counsel has previously taken the position that the president can invoke his Article II authorities to target chemical weapons facilities in another country, without first seeking approval from Congress. Acclimating both Congress and executive agencies to the claim that fentanyl is a “chemical weapon” would embolden an executive branch that already views its war powers as virtually unchecked. If H.R. 3205 is passed, a future president could instrumentalize both the view of Congress and prior OLC positions to justify unilateral strikes on cartels in Mexico, embroiling the United States in a destabilizing cross-border conflict that would endanger people in both countries.
The push for strikes into Mexico would be closely paired with increased border militarization and even greater restrictions on people who are migrating to and seeking protection in the United States. Powerful politicians are already, wrongly, scapegoating these populations for fentanyl-related deaths. If H.R. 3205 is adopted and migrants become viewed as perpetuating “chemical weapon attacks,” congressional rhetoric will open the door to an even greater military buildup at the U.S.-Mexico border, and our hobbled asylum and refugee resettlement systems will further atrophy as people already fleeing conflict and crisis are baselessly treated as threats.
H.R. 3205 not only plays into the hands of those seeking conflict in Mexico, but also risks undermining international efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons. The CWC is a successful and durable international arms control agreement that has facilitated the destruction of 99% of the world’s declared chemical weapons stockpiles. In pushing an international arms control treaty body to address a drug policy matter entirely divorced from its mission, the United States would open the door to other governments revisiting and even contesting the CWC in a manner that both distracts from efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons and degrades the international taboo on chemical weapons’ storage and use.
Finally, in seeking to present fentanyl as a weapon of war, H.R. 3205 entrenches the cardinal failure of the war on drugs – militarizing a public health challenge. The U.S. government viewing people who use fentanyl as wielding a “chemical weapon” would imperil desperately needed access to treatment and health services that can prevent overdoses and address drug dependence. In particular, the bill’s authors have not clarified how amending the CWC to include fentanyl as a chemical substance would impact enforcement of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11B, which mandates severe penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment for possessing a chemical weapon, in addition to life imprisonment or capital punishment for any person in violation of the law “and by whose action the death of another person is the result” (18 U.S.C. § 229 and 229A). As a result, medical professionals may avoid fentanyl’s licit and beneficial applications for fear of prescribing a “chemical weapon.” And any further police, prosecutorial, or even military action or expanded authority to disrupt this “chemical weapon” would disproportionately fall, as has the rest of the war on drugs, on communities of color, people who use drugs, and the working class.
All too often, we see overheated and politically expedient statements set the stage for spiraling international crises and attacks on the most vulnerable. We urge Congress to reject H.R. 3205, and stop today’s rhetoric from encouraging tomorrow’s conflict.
Afghans For A Better Tomorrow
AIDS United
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
Center for International Policy
Demand Progress Action
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Justice is Global
Kino Border Initiative
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
National Immigration Project
National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies
NEXT Distro
Oxfam America
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Project On Government Oversight
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Washington Office on Latin America
Win Without War
Win Without War is a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. We believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people--regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status--can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.
"Bringing this war to an end," said one former US intelligence analyst, "requires recognizing it can still get much, much worse."
In what has been described as a potential "major escalation" of the Trump administration's war with Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved a request from US Central Command to move more warships and thousands of Marines to the Middle East following Iran's attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Citing three US officials, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US was sending "an element of an amphibious ready group and attached Marine expeditionary unit, typically consisting of several warships and 5,000 Marines and sailors."
According to the Journal, the Japan-based USS Tripoli and its attached Marines are already headed to the Middle East.
While the Journal did not explicitly report that the operation was tied to the volatile situation in the Strait of Hormuz, it noted that "the move comes as Iran’s attacks on the strait have paralyzed traffic through the strategic waterway, disrupting the global economy, driving up gas prices and posing a major military and political challenge for President [Donald] Trump."
In his first address on Thursday, delivered by a news anchor on Iranian state TV, the country's new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said that “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely be used" to heighten economic pressure on the US.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that "not a liter of oil" shall pass through the strait, and vowed to attack any ship linked to the US and Israel that may attempt to make the journey.
Iran has reportedly attacked at least six commercial ships in the area since Wednesday, including one marked with a Thai flag that still has three crew members missing. US intelligence sources have also accused Iran of laying mines in the Strait, which Iran has neither confirmed nor denied.
The blockage of the strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil shipments pass each year, has sent the global market into chaos. Prices of Brent crude have surged from under $70 less than a month ago to more than $100 per barrel on the global market, and US gas prices have leaped to $3.63 per gallon on average, up from $2.94 a month ago.
Prices have continued to climb even after the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced its largest-ever coordinated release of oil from nations' strategic reserves on Wednesday to combat what it called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
Shashank Joshi, the defense editor at The Economist and a visiting fellow at the Department of War Studies at King's College London, said that a deployment of such a large Marine force seems to be "a key indicator of a potential ground operation" in Iran.
Trump said earlier this week that he was "nowhere near" sending troops into Iran even as it ramped up threats to block the strait. But privately, he has reportedly been mulling plans to put "boots on the ground" within Iranian territory to accomplish a number of objectives, though officials have characterized them as limited special-operations missions.
Administration officials have reportedly suggested a commando raid on Iran's nuclear sites to confiscate or sabotage its supply of uranium, according to Axios. They've also considered a plan to occupy Kharg Island, which sits 15 miles off Iran's coast and handles about 90% of its oil exports, serving as an economic "lifeline" for the battered nation.
But Trump has also said that if Iran blocks the strait, "the US Navy and its partners will escort tankers through the strait, if needed." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Dan Caine, has said the Pentagon is looking at "a range of options" to do this.
In an analysis published Tuesday by Zeteo, Harrison Mann, a former US Army major and executive officer of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East/Africa Regional Center, suggested that the US may pursue an ambitious plan to "clear Iran’s coastline around the strait" to get tankers moving again.
Mann, who worked under the Biden administration but resigned in protest of its support for the genocide in Gaza, said this plan would require "an indefinite occupation–otherwise missile trucks could just get in position after US forces leave." Doing this, he added, would require "a full-fledged invasion, possibly beyond even the 10,000 or so rapid-response forces at Trump’s disposal."
"All of these ground operations risk high casualties while failing to accomplish their missions," Mann said. "That’s a feature, not a bug. Even if one of these operations met its objectives, troops in peril behind enemy lines demand resupply, evacuation, and revenge, which puts more troops in peril behind enemy lines, and so on."
The movement of more troops comes as the US public expresses strong disapproval of Trump's war with Iran. In a Quinnipiac poll published this week, 53% of registered voters said they opposed US military action against Iran, while just 40% approved.
About 74% said they feared that the war would cause oil and gas prices to rise, and 71% feared that the war would last "months" or longer.
Trump's former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who remains one of his top allies in media, said on his War Room podcast that deploying such a large military force "sends a signal to Iran, but it also sends a signal to the American people: This is a major escalation."
Mann said that putting troops on the ground in Iran will only "ensure that Trump can't back out easily, which is exactly what [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, [US Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and their ilk need to fracture Iran.
"Bringing this war to an end," Mann said, "requires recognizing it can still get much, much worse, refusing to fall for the promise of 'small special ops raids,' and calling these courses of action what they are: a prelude to forever war."
"If high costs weren’t already bad enough, Donald Trump’s unnecessary war in Iran has sent gas prices through the roof," said one House Democrat.
Data released Friday showed that US consumer sentiment hit a new low for 2026 and the American economy expanded by just 0.7% in the fourth quarter of last year, indicators that experts said are only going to get worse due to the cascading impacts of President Donald Trump's deadly, illegal, and expensive war on Iran.
“President Trump is flooring the gas pedal as he drives our economy over a cliff," Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said in response to the new data, some of which was collected before the US and Israel launched their assault on Iran, sparking a regional conflict, sending oil prices surging, and destabilizing the global economy.
"As bad as this week’s data is," Jacquez added, "it understates reality for exhausted consumers who have been hit with even more price hikes caused by the president’s intentional turmoil in the weeks since this data was collected. Instead of working to bring down ever-increasing prices at the pump, the grocery store, and the doctor’s office, the president is betraying working families as his illegal war with Iran stokes inflation."
Figures released Friday by the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) showed that real gross domestic product increased at half the rate predicted by previous government estimates.
"Real GDP was revised down 0.7 percentage points from the advance estimate [of 1.4%], reflecting downward revisions to exports, consumer spending, government spending, and investment," the BEA said in a news release.
NBC News noted that "economists had expected the revision to go the other way—and show stronger growth."
The BEA also published data showing that the personal consumption expenditures price index, a key inflation reading, rose at an annualized rate of 2.8% in January.
“Families across the United States are struggling to make ends meet in Donald Trump’s economy," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. "If high costs weren’t already bad enough, Donald Trump’s unnecessary war in Iran has sent gas prices through the roof."
A Harris Poll opinion survey conducted for The Guardian and released Friday found that more than 70% of US voters believe Trump's tariff regime has driven up their costs.
"In the short run, the economic impact of a sustained loss of Gulf oil could be very ugly."
Consumer sentiment, meanwhile, continued its steady decline in March, falling about 2% compared to last month, according to the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers. Roughly half of the interviews conducted for the consumer sentiment report were completed before the US and Israel began attacking Iran on February 28.
Joanne Hsu, director of the Surveys of Consumers, noted that "interviews completed prior to the military action in Iran showed an improvement in sentiment from last month, but lower readings seen during the nine days thereafter completely erased those initial gains."
"Gasoline prices have exerted the most immediate impact felt by consumers, though the magnitude of passthrough to other prices remains highly uncertain," Hsu noted. "A broad swath of consumers across incomes, age, and political affiliation all reported declines in expectations for their personal finances, down 7.5% nationally."
"Interviews completed after February 28 exhibited higher inflation expectations than those completed before that date," Hsu added.
The first six days of Trump's war on Iran cost US taxpayers over $11 billion, and the price tag is set to rise exponentially as the administration deploys thousands of additional troops to the Middle East and continues aggressively bombing Iran, which has retaliated in part by closing the Strait of Hormuz—choking off the flow of oil through the critical trade route and sending prices surging.
The Trump administration has sought to downplay skyrocketing oil prices even as it takes emergency action in an attempt to bring them down. The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli assault on Iran sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
Economist Paul Krugman warned Friday that "oil prices could easily go much higher," noting, "The US and other major economies are a lot less oil-dependent than they were in the 1970s, and even at $100 a barrel oil prices are not high enough to provoke a major crisis."
"In the short run, the economic impact of a sustained loss of Gulf oil could be very ugly," Krugman wrote. "I’ve seen some alarmists warn that a long war in the Gulf could lead to oil at $150 a barrel. That looks low to me."
"When will President Trump understand that Americans want lower prices, not more unnecessary wars?"
As President Donald Trump continued to face global criticism for his and Israel's joint assault on Iran, a trio of US Senate Democrats on Friday introduced a war powers resolution intended to prevent him from also attacking Cuba without congressional authorization amid talks with the island's government.
Despite the US Constitution empowering Congress to declare war, Trump this year has not only launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran but also killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans in a military invasion to abduct President Nicolás Maduro, sent troops to Ecuador for a joint campaign to combat "narco-terrorism," and blown up over 150 people allegedly trafficking drugs in Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean in bombings that critics have called "war crimes, murder, or both."
"When will President Trump understand that Americans want lower prices, not more unnecessary wars?" asked Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is spearheading the Cuba measure with Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). A member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, Kaine also led the war powers resolution on Iran that Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and nearly all Republicans blocked last week.
Despite constitutional limits, Trump "operates with the belief that the US military is a palace guard, ordering military action in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Iran without Congress' authorization or any explanation for his actions to the American people," said Kaine. "We shouldn't risk our sons and daughters' lives at the whims of any one person."
The Biden administration intended to cut Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, but Trump reversed course after returning to office last year and revived a list of "restricted entities" established during his first term. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change on the island, also expanded a visa policy targeting Cuba's international medical missions.
Since Trump's operation to abduct Maduro and seize control of his country's nationalized oil industry—which led to protests in Venezuela and Cuba—Trump has also ramped up the United States' decades-long economic blockade against the island, cutting off shipments of Venezuelan oil, with dire consequences for the Cuban people.
As Marta Hurtado, a spokesperson for United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, explained last month: "Given the dependence of health, food, and water systems on imported fossil fuels, the current oil scarcity has put the availability of essential services at risk nationwide. Intensive care units and emergency rooms are compromised, as are the production, delivery, and storage of vaccines, blood products, and other temperature-sensitive medications."
Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have signaled they're considering an attack on the island. Trump told reporters late last month that "the Cuban government is talking with us," but also said that "maybe we'll have a friendly takeover of Cuba."
Just days later, after Trump ditched nuclear negotiations with Iran and teamed up with Israel to bomb the Middle Eastern country, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared during a Fox News interview: "Cuba's next. They're gonna fall."
Noting the rising death toll for US service members involved in the war on Iran, Schiff said Friday that "the American people have spoken loud and clear that they do not want any more costly wars of choice that skyrocket prices at home."
"The president's saber-rattling toward Cuba makes clear where his sights are next," he continued. "Congress must make its voice heard, or we risk involvement in another risky war of choice and losing our constitutionally granted authorities forever."
Gallego also highlighted how Trump's misadventures abroad are impacting US citizens, as Americans contend with surging gasoline prices on top of high costs for groceries, housing, and health insurance, plus massive cuts to social safety net programs that congressional Republicans and the president imposed with their budget package last year to give more tax cuts to the rich.
"As if the disaster of the Iran War and the resulting spike in oil prices weren't enough, Trump is now threatening to intervene in Cuba as well," said Gallego, a former Marine who served in the Iraq War. "He ran on America First, but now it's clear he's become a puppet of the war hawks in his party. The American people want nothing to do with nation building—they want lower prices, good healthcare, and affordable homes, not a new war to satisfy neoconservatives in South Florida."
The senators announced their resolution as Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly confirmed that his government recently held "sensitive" talks with the Trump administration "to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries. And in addition, to identify areas of cooperation to confront threats and guarantee the security and peace of both nations, as well as in the region."
According to The Associated Press:
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top aides met late last month in the Caribbean with the grandson of retired Cuban leader Raul Castro, two US officials said Friday shortly after Díaz-Canel spoke.
The US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, said that Rubio had met secretly with Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro on the sidelines of a Caribbean Community leaders meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis.
Rubio's meeting coincided with a shootout involving men on a Florida speedboat and Cuban forces that left five suspects dead and five others detained in Cuba, facing terrorism charges. The AP noted that when asked about that case on Friday, Díaz-Canel "said that FBI officials would visit Cuba soon as both countries continue to share information on the incident."
During his remarks to reporters, Díaz-Canel also noted the "tremendous" impact of the oil blockade, which has affected communications, education, healthcare, and transportation.
Sharing a clip of the Cuban leader's comments on social media, Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler said: "I am asking you to imagine how a civilian population of over 10 million people can survive without any access to imported energy for three whole months. In Cuba, the United States is committing the most barbaric war crimes known to man—and Washington simply shrugs it off."