SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ilhan omar
'Seismic Shift' as Over 100 House Democrats Vote to Cut Off US Military Aid to Israel
"This should be a blaring wake-up call for Democratic leaders," said one campaigner. "The political tide is clearly turning against unconditional US military support for Israel."
Jul 15, 2026
Nearly half of all Democrats in the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to cut off US military aid to Israel, a move that underscored a dramatic shift away from the US support the Mideast ally has enjoyed for nearly 60 years.
While House lawmakers ultimately rejected Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a national security spending bill that would have eliminated the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided to Israel’s military, the details of the vote were viewed as an encouraging sign by defenders of Palestine and the rule of law.
Massie and 103 Democrats voted for the measure, while 215 Republicans and 98 Democrats rejected it. The overall tally was 104 for, 314 against, and 10 "present" votes, with 9 absences.
"I cannot vote for aid to a country that committed genocide and has used tax dollars to detain Americans like me," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said ahead of the vote, referring to an incident in which heavily armed residents of an Israeli settler colony stopped and surrounded him last week in the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine.
Speaking to reporters after the vote, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who had urged colleagues to support Massie's amendment—noted, "It used to be that just a small number of House Democrats would vote against sending taxpayer dollars to weapons for the Israeli military."
"Today, over 100 House Democrats voted for a measure to block billions of dollars in weapons to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu," he continued. "That is enormous progress. That is a victory for our movement, for security, peace, and justice for all people."
The vote, Casar said, "sasends a strong message to Netanyahu that the days are over of an unaccountable blank check to his wars and his war crimes, at least from the Democratic Party."
"So this is an important moment because nothing will be the same on this issue ever again, I think, after this vote," he added.
CPC Chair @RepCasar, Deputy Chair @Ilhan Omar and @USProgressives on the historic vote by a majority of House Democrats to block $3 billion in weapons to Israel pic.twitter.com/T58q6J5LHZ
— Keane Bhatt (@KeaneBhatt) July 15, 2026
Speaking after Casar, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said that she was "surprised" by many of her colleagues' votes in favor of the amendment, "and I am proud of them."
"I am proud that they have finally decided to lead with their morals, that they finally dared to stand up, and that we are all finally listening to our constituents, who have been asking us to do the right thing for many years," she added.
The high vote count in favor of Massie's amendment came after a "dear colleague" letter from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (D-NY) expressing his opposition to the measure.
Palestine and human rights defenders hailed Wednesday's vote.
“Today’s vote reflects a seismic shift in US politics. What was once unquestioning bipartisan consensus to fund Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians is now breaking apart," Jewish Voice for Peace Action political director Beth Miller said in a statement. "While it is shameful that the House failed to pass this amendment, it is also now clear that it is impossible for Congress to ignore our voices."
"The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are demanding that we halt US military funding to Israel, and every Democrat who ignored these calls should fear for their seat,” Miller added.
Margaret DeReus, executive director of policy projects at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), said Wednesday's vote "reflects the popular will of Americans, and the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who do not want to see another penny of our tax dollars fund Israel’s genocidal military."
"No more weapons to Israel is a principled demand, a legal obligation, and now a political necessity for any Democrat in office," DeReus added. "Democratic lawmakers who continue to stand with [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's] fringe agenda of funding to Israel, and against their voters on the moral issue of our time, are inviting a primary challenge.
The United Nations' International Court of Justice is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 nations. A UN panel of experts concluded last year that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded, most of them civilians, since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, including over 9,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble.
In addition to the $3.3 billion in annual military aid the US gives Israel under a 2016 memorandum of understanding signed by then-President Barack Obama, the Biden and Trump administrations have provided billions of dollars in additional armed aid to Israel since it began waging its US-backed war on Gaza.
All told, the US has provided approximately $174 billion in direct bilateral assistance and missile defense funding—over $300 billion when adjusted for inflation—since the modern Israeli state's atrocity-laden founding in 1948. This makes Israel the largest overall beneficiary of US foreign aid since World War II.
US aid dramatically increased after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and the attack that same year by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty, which killed or wounded more than 200 Navy sailors in what numerous senior US officials believed was a deliberate attack. Last month, Massie introduced a resolution honoring the 34 Americans killed and 174 wounded in the Liberty attack.
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that "congressional Democrats are finally starting to catch up to the American people, who no longer want to give Israel a blank check."
"This should be a blaring wake-up call for Democratic leaders," Kharrazian added. "The political tide is clearly turning against unconditional US military support for Israel. Leadership can no longer dismiss this position as marginal or politically untenable. Members should listen to their constituents, stop shielding Israel’s government from accountability, and support future efforts to end the flow of US weapons and military financing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ilhan Omar Takes Marco Rubio to Task With Call for US to Finally Join International Criminal Court
"America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them."
Jul 15, 2026
Days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to "dismantle” the International Criminal Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar hit back on Wednesday with a resolution urging the US to join the international war crimes tribunal for the first time.
The Democrat from Minnesota was the first member of Congress to push back against the Trump administration's pledge that it would “systematically disable” the ICC's “ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”
“The ICC is a crucial tool for justice in places where victims have nowhere else to turn,” Omar told The Guardian. “If we truly believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not undermine it. The United States should lead by example and show that no one is above the law.”
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. But during President Donald Trump's second term, his administration has waged war on the body, specifically over its investigations into Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and investigations into US personnel over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
It has imposed sanctions on most of the court's leadership, as well as on those who have "materially assisted" ICC investigations it opposes, including lawyers and human rights groups that have provided evidence.
The administration has also reportedly demanded that the court amend the Rome Statute to ensure that Trump and members of his administration, as well as Israeli officials, cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
Rubio's pledge to dismantle the court has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights advocates.
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said that “in trying to discredit the court, Rubio instead highlights its very purpose: ensuring accountability when those with the power to act choose not to.”
"His arguments read like a tacit admission of wrongdoing," she said, "suggesting concerns that US officials could one day be held accountable for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, including deporting people to torture in El Salvador’s prisons or the campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
She said, "The only reason he would have to fear the ICC is if US officials have committed such crimes outside the United States and the US government is unwilling to hold them genuinely accountable.”
Omar's resolution came as a pair of advocacy organizations launched a lawsuit against Trump and other top administration officials alleging that they illegally "muzzle[d] Palestine advocacy" in violation of the First Amendment when they sanctioned human rights groups that called for investigations into US and Israeli nationals over war crimes in Gaza.
While Rubio has denounced the court's very existence as a threat to “every aspect of [America’s] political and legal system," and argued that it could lead to the prosecution of US soldiers simply for serving in the military, Omar said this was "simply not true."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," she said. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
Omar has introduced two previous resolutions calling on the US to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC in 2020 and 2022. Neither of them was brought to the floor for a vote, though the latter one had nine Democratic cosponsors.
Announcing plans for a new resolution on Monday, she said, "I urge my colleagues who believe in justice and human rights to join me."
She said: "America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them. If we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Rule of Law or Barbarism,' Says Francesca Albanese After Rubio Attack on ICC
"All states and people who care for freedom must rise up in defense of the ICC and international justice now, before it's too late," the UN Palestine expert implored.
Jul 14, 2026
More defenders of human rights and the rule of law weighed on Tuesday after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's announcement of a "campaign to dismantle" the International Criminal Court, many of whose judges and prosecutors have already been sanctioned by the administration of President Donald Trump.
Rubio raised eyebrows around the world by accusing the International Criminal Court—which is based in The Hague, Netherlands—of “waging a war against our country—not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes, compacts, and the force of so-called international law," and cryptically vowing that the Trump administration “will teach the ICC the full meaning of American resolve.”
On Tuesday, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, called Rubio's announcement "utterly shocking but not a surprise."
"All states and people who care for freedom must rise up in defense of the ICC and international justice now, before it's too late," added Albanese, who is under legally contested sanctions imposed by the Trump administration for her outspoken criticism of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza. "It's rule of law or barbarism."
Responding Monday to the secretary of state's remarks, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media that "Rubio's announcement that he will dismantle the International Criminal Court is reckless and dangerous. It undermines the rule of law, weakens global accountability, and turns America's back on the values we claim to champion."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," Omar added. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: Don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
The Trump administration has already hit ICC judges with sanctions, including asset freezes, travel bans, and other penalties for ordering the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, as well as for seeking to investigate US atrocities in Afghanistan.
ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan and two deputy prosecutors, as well as eight judges, have been sanctioned by the US.
While the US and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute governing the ICC and do not recognize the tribunal's legitimacy, the treaty states that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggott echoed Rubio's remarks, telling Newsmax on Tuesday morning that "if the ICC continues to try to threaten our sovereignty, they will know the full power of American resolve."
Responding to the interview, independent journalist Aaron Rupar asked, "Are we going to, like, bomb the International Criminal Court?"
Astute observers noted that the American Service Members’ Protection Act—passed during the George W. Bush administration and known colloquially as the "Hague Invasion Act"—authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate,” including military intervention, to secure the release of American or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC.
"The ICC is not doing great. There's a lot to complain about. But this, we cannot allow. We cannot allow these hegemons and bullies to run this project into the ground because there is something worthy of protection and improvement in it," Iva Vukušić, an assistant professor of international history at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, said Tuesday on Bluesky in response to Rubio's threat.
I cannot stress this enough: If this institution is destroyed, we will have nothing new at the international level negotiated for a generation, if ever. I don't believe the ICC is amazing, and there's a lot going on on the domestic level, but we need an ICC. A better one. #Accountability #Justice
— Iva Vukušić (@vukusiciva.bsky.social) July 14, 2026 at 12:54 AM
"The arrogance of this man, his boss, and their corrupt administration is insufferable," Vukušić said in a separate Bluesky post. "The empire must fall for a thousand reasons, but this childish arrogance is among the most important ones."
Journalist Thor Benson also took to Bluesky, writing: "I hope Marco Rubio eventually gets tried before the ICC. That would be a good way for this to go."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular