

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.
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
While Gothamist's characterization of Friday's White House meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as "a surprising bromance" was likely an overstretch, the far-right US leader did offer copious praise for the democratic socialist during their amiable encounter.
Asked by a reporter if he would feel comfortable living in New York City under Mamdani, Trump—with Mamdani standing beside him in the Oval Office—replied: “Yeah, I would. I really would. Especially after the meeting."
“We agree on a lot more than I thought," the president continued. "I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Asked by another reporter if he was standing next to a “jihadist"—as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) called Mamdani over his support for Palestinian liberation and opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza—Trump said, “No... I met with a man who is a very rational person."
"I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again," the president added. "I think you’re going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am. And we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true. Having a strong and very safe New York.”
Comparing Mamdani to another prominent democratic socialist, who represents Vermont in the US Senate, Trump added that "Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought."
The pair reportedly discussed contentious issues including Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown and federal invasion of several US cities including Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Portland, Maine; Chicago; and Memphis.
However, they also discussed common-ground issues including the affordability crisis, which has hit New Yorkers particularly hard.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani told reporters.
Friday's friendly meeting was a stark departure from previous acrimonious exchanges between Trump and Mamdani. The president has called Mamdani a "communist lunatic” and a “total nut job," and repeatedly threatened to cut off federal funding to the nation's largest city if the leftist was elected. Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani after the then-mayoral candidate said he would refuse to cooperate with his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Asked Friday about calling Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views that are a little out there, but who knows. I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change, also. I changed a lot."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," the president added. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
For his part, Mamdani has called Trump a "despot" and the embodiment of New York City's problems, decried his "authoritarian" administration, and called himself the president's "worst nightmare." He also called Trump a "fascist" on numerous occasions.
"I've been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped Friday.
After their meeting, a reporter asked Mamdani if he still thought Trump is a fascist. The president interrupted as Mamdani began to respond, patting him on the arm and saying, “That’s OK, you can just say yes."
Mamdani did not compliment Trump nearly as much as the president lavished praise upon him. He did say that their meeting was "cordial and productive," and that he anticipated partnering with Trump to "improve life in New York," highlighting their agreement on issues like housing affordability, food and energy costs, and reducing the cost of living—issues which he said motivated voters to support both men.
Observers expressed surprise over the affable meeting, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—one of Trump's staunchest congressional critics—asking on social media, "What the heck just happened?"
Some social media users noted that Trump offered Mamdani a more ringing endorsement than even some prominent Democrats, with one Bluesky account posting, "Donald Trump endorsed Zohran Mamdani before Chuck Schumer," a reference to the Senate majority leader—who never endorsed his party's nominee to lead the city they both call home.
Corporate Democrats' disdain for leftist candidates and ideology was on full display Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 285-98 in favor of a resolution "denouncing the horrors of socialism" in "all its forms," presumably including the variety that has been a dominant political and economic force across Western democracies since shortly after World War II.
Eighty-six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in voting for the resolution. The vote took place as Mamdani was en route to the White House.
Rep. Eugene Vindman—who was a White House national security lawyer at the time of the 2019 call—said it “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
The widow of Jamal Khashoggi on Friday joined Democratic members of Congress in urging President Donald Trump to release the transcript of a phone conversation between the US leader and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the journalist's 2018 kidnapping and gruesome murder by Saudi operatives.
Speaking outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC flanked by Democratic members of Congress including Reps. Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi said she is seeking the lawmakers' help "to get the contents of the conversation between President Trump and MBS to get the truth."
“Try as much as you can to save the democratic freedom of America," Khashoggi implored the audience at the gathering. "Do not be a copy of the Middle East dictator countries. We look to America as our role model of modern civilization. Please maintain it.”
Jamal Khashoggi's widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi: "I'm seeking the help of Congressmen Vindman and Jamie Raskin, to get the transcript of the conversation between President Trump and Crown Prince MBS to understand the truth."
[image or embed]
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) November 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Vindman urged the declassification and release of what he called a "highly disturbing" 2019 call between Trump and MBS—who US intelligence agencies say ordered Khashoggi's murder—the contents of which the congressman claimed “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
At the time of the call, Vindman was serving as a lawyer on Trump's National Security Council, where his duties included reviewing presidential communications with foreign leaders.
"All week, I’ve urged the president to release this transcript," Vindman said during his remarks at Friday's press conference. "Yesterday, I sent him a letter with 37 of my colleagues demanding its release. We will continue pressing until the American people get the truth.”
"Given President Trump’s disturbing and counterfactual defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week, I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of the Khashoggi family and the country I serve," he added.
On Tuesday, Trump warmly welcomed the crown prince to the White House, calling him a "respected man," designating Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally, and announcing the planned sale of F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom.
Trump also threatened an ABC News reporter who attempted to ask MBS about his role in Khashoggi's murder, calling the victim "somebody that was extremely controversial" and whom "a lot of people didn’t like."
“Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen," Trump said as MBS smugly looked on, dubiously adding that the crown prince "knew nothing about it."
Responding to Trump's comments, Khashoggi's widow said during Friday's press conference that “there is no justification to kidnap [Khashoggi], torture him, to kill him, and to cut him to pieces."
"This is a terrorist act," she added.
Khashoggi—a Washington Post columnist and permanent US resident—vanished in October 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials said he was attacked, suffocated to death, and dismembered with a bone saw inside the consular compound. One Turkish investigator said Khashoggi was tortured in front the Saudi consul-general and dismembered while he was still alive.
Saudi officials initially denied that Khashoggi died in the consulate but later confirmed his death, claiming it resulted from a “fistfight” gone wrong. In 2019, a Saudi court sentenced five people to death and three others to prison terms in connection with Khashoggi’s murder. However, the death sentences were later commuted.
The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that MBS ordered Khashoggi's murder. Saudi officials refuted the CIA's findings. Trump also expressed skepticism at his own intelligence agency's conclusion, which came as the US was selling or seeking to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia despite its rampant war crimes in Yemen.
Hopes that former President Joe Biden would take a different approach to Saudi Arabia over war crimes and Khashoggi's murder were dashed as his administration continued selling arms to the kingdom and argued in federal court that MBS should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case filed by the slain journalist's widow.
Trump has sought closer ties to Saudi Arabia during his second term as he courts up to $1 trillion in investments from the kingdom and works to broker diplomatic normalization between Riyadh and Israel.
The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization—which is run by the president’s two eldest sons—is “in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property" to Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about possible corruption and conflicts of interest.
"We stand with Rep. Deluzio and every patriot holding the line," said one veteran group. "We reject violence. We reject intimidation. And we will never apologize for defending the oath."
Just a day after President Donald Trump suggested that six congressional Democrats should be hanged for reminding members of the US military and intelligence community of their duty not to obey illegal orders, one of those lawmakers was the target of multiple bomb threats.
A spokesperson for US Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) said Friday afternoon that his "district offices in Carnegie and Beaver County were both the targets of bomb threats this afternoon. The congressman and congressional staff are safe, and thank law enforcement for swiftly responding. Political violence and threats like this are unacceptable."
On Tuesday, the former US Navy officer had joined Democratic Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), along with Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), for the 90-second video.
Trump—who notably incited the deadly January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol while trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential contest—lashed out at the six veterans of the military and intelligence agencies on his Truth Social platform Thursday, accusing them of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" and reposting a call to "HANG THEM."
Deluzio and the others have doubled down on their message that, as he says in the video, "you must refuse illegal orders."
In a joint statement responding to Trump's remarks, the six Democrats reiterated their commitment to upholding the oaths they took "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," urged every American to "unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder and political violence," and stressed that "we will continue to lead and will not be intimidated."
Deluzio also addressed Trump's comments on CNN, denouncing his "outrageous call for political violence."
Other lawmakers, veterans, and political observers have also condemned Trump's comments—and the grassroots vet group Common Defense pointed to them on social media Friday, after Deluzio's staff confirmed the bomb threats.
"First: Common Defense unequivocally condemns political violence in all shapes, forms, and from any party. Violence has no place in our democracy. We believe in the rule of law. But we cannot ignore the cause and effect here," the organization said.
"The response to quoting the Constitution was a call for execution," the group continued. "Now, Rep. Deluzio, an Iraq War veteran, is facing actual bomb threats. When leaders normalize violence against political opponents, this or worse is the inevitable result."
"We stand with Rep. Deluzio and every patriot holding the line," Common Defense added. "We reject violence. We reject intimidation. And we will never apologize for defending the oath."