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
adam schiff
‘Nauseating’: Critics Hammer Democratic Senators' Tributes to 'Bloodthirsty' Lindsey Graham
"I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it," said one critic.
Jul 12, 2026
Hours after Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died on Saturday, many of his Democratic colleagues in the US Senate posted statements on their social media pages paying tribute to the South Carolina Republican.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that he would most remember Graham (R-SC) for his "his sense of humor and how he deployed it to move his policy positions forward."
"Though we did not often agree," Schiff added, "Senator Graham was never disagreeable."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) similarly said of Graham that "even though we disagreed on much, he was always willing to negotiate, with humor and wit," adding "my heart goes out to his loved ones."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said he was "saddened" to hear of news of Graham's death, which he said came "as a real shock."
"I’m grateful I had the chance to work with Lindsey," said Kim, "including several international trips working on foreign policy."
However, many critics argued that these tributes to Graham overlooked his destructive legacy in public office, including his decades of war mongering and his slavish devotion to the authoritarian President Donald Trump.
"I don't give a fuck that Graham used to be friends with Democratic senators," wrote Thomas Lecaque, associate professor of history at Grand View University. "He was a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists to be able to push it more effectively. I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse, responding directly to Schiff's post, reminded him of Graham's behavior during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when he "threw an angry tantrum in defense of a SCOTUS nominee credibly accused of rape."
"Did you all have a good collegial chuckle over that?" Kruse asked.
Brandon Friedman, co-founder of the Rakkasan Tea Company and a veteran of the Iraq War, also responded directly to Schiff.
"What I'll remember most about Senator Graham," Friedman wrote, "is how he sent my friends to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq."
Jen Rubin, editor-in-chief of The Contrarian and former columnist for The Washington Post, described the Democrats' tributes to Graham as "nauseating" and "everything that is wrong" with the US Senate.
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, said the Democrats' statements were just one more signal of weakness from the party.
"The Democratic Party's approval rating is in the toilet," Grossman wrote, "and the main reason is voters see Dem leaders and prominent members acting like things are basically okay instead of fighting like there's an emergency. Slot 'my friend Lindsey Graham, so funny, how great to work with him' comments into that."
Cartoonish Eli Valley was apoplectic about Democrats' fawning hagiography of their late Republican colleague.
"That Democrats see mass-murdering fascists dismantling the country as nothing more than 'colleagues they dislike' is why we've been in a non-stop plummet," Valley wrote. "Incredible this is still debatable, by people who ostensibly oppose fascism, ten years into this?!?"
Political consultant Jamison Foser wrote a parody of the Democrats' statements that imagined them paying tribute to none other than Satan.
"Deeply saddened to learn of the loss of my dear friend Satan, the Prince of Lies," wrote Foser. "Though we often disagreed about matters such as the appropriate role of torture in the afterlife, I will most remember how his quick wit and affable nature made our weekly golf outings a ritual. He will be missed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pay-to-Play Loyalty Program': Trump Ballroom Donors Have Been Handed $50 Billion in Federal Contracts
"Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom," said Rep. Jason Crow. "Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars."
Jun 05, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested President Donald Trump is running a "pay-to-play loyalty program for wealthy donors" after a report on Thursday revealed that more than half the companies that contributed to his White House ballroom project have been awarded government contracts over the last six months, totaling over $50 billion.
Examining the 27 publicly known corporate donors to the president’s $400 million gold-plated vanity project, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 14 of them—more than half—had received either new or expanded contracts over the past six months after donating millions to the ballroom and appearing at a lavish White House banquet in October as Trump prepared to demolish the building's East Wing.
Over two-thirds, 19 of the 27 companies, received government contracts since fiscal year 2021, totaling over $338 billion. At least 16 out of 27 are also either facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had them suspended by the Trump administration.
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts. They have massive interests before the federal government, and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration,” said Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger, an author of the report.
By far the biggest monetary beneficiary has been the military contractor Lockheed Martin, which received a $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding over the past six months after it pledged $10 million to fund the dance hall last fall.
Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company that serves military and intelligence agencies and pledged at least $5 million to the project, received $4 billion in contracts over the same period.
Meanwhile, Palantir—the data-mining surveillance giant with deep ties to the Trump administration—reaped over $1 billion in contracts after giving its own $5 million donation.
"Millions to fund Trump’s bizarre fever dreams are nothing compared to the billions they’re getting back in contracts and favorable government enforcement decisions," Golinger said. "The American people are paying the price.”
Other ballroom benefactors that have brought in more than $100 million worth of contracts over the past six months include Microsoft, Amazon, HP, and Caterpillar, while T-Mobile, Google, NextEra Energy, and Comcast have all brought in more than $10 million.
Public Citizen noted that while the White House has publicized some of the ballroom donors and others have been revealed by news organizations, not all of the companies that have contributed to the project are publicly known, since the secret funding agreement obtained by the group through a Freedom of Information Act request allows their identities to remain private.
In a statement to The Washington Post, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle suggested that critics should be grateful that Trump was soliciting donations from the wealthy for this very important undertaking.
“The same critics who are alleging fake conflicts of interest would also complain if American taxpayers were footing the bill for these long-overdue renovations,” he said, ignoring the fact that Trump has previously pressured Republicans in Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding to secure the ballroom.
Ingle added that “the donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.”
But several Democratic members of Congress have pointed to it as evidence of Trump selling out the government "to the highest bidder."
“Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.). “Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars.”
“Wild coincidence or taxpayer-funded corruption?” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “You be the judge.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that “the part that should make your blood boil” is the fact that many of the companies identified in the report “were facing federal enforcement actions, antitrust reviews, labor cases, [or] securities charges.”
"Many of those cases have been quietly dropped or scaled back since Trump took office. You write a check, your legal problems disappear," Levin said. "That’s not a coincidence."
“You cannot afford to donate to Trump’s ballroom, so he does nothing to improve the quality of your life,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “But for those who can, there are billions in government contracts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning of Another 'Disaster' Like Iran, Senators Introduce War Powers Resolution on Cuba
"When will President Trump understand that Americans want lower prices, not more unnecessary wars?"
Mar 13, 2026
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heavily Armed Secret Police Force': ICE, CBP Amass $144 Million Weapons Stockpile
"In just one year, ICE’s spending commitments on weapons, ammunition, and accessories surged fourfold."
Feb 25, 2026
A report produced by the office of Sen. Adam Schiff reveals that federal immigration enforcement agencies amassed a gigantic weapons stockpile during the first year of President Donald Trump's second term.
In total, the report released by Schiff (D-Calif.) finds that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) committed to spending over $144 million on weapons and ammunition over the last year, a massive increase over these agencies' spending on weapons in years past.
"In just one year, ICE’s spending commitments on weapons, ammunition, and accessories surged fourfold—an increase of over 360 percent—when compared to ICE’s contracts in 2024," states the report. "In 2025, CBP’s contracts for weapons, ammunition, and accessories doubled when compared to CBP’s 2024 contract totals."
The report documents how both agencies have combined to spend tens of millions of dollars purchasing lethal weapons, including "AR-style rifles, pistols, and large quantities of accessories, such as optical sights for firearms and suppressors"; so-called "less-lethal" weapons including "TASERs, pepper sprays, tear gas canisters, and canister launchers"; and assorted kinds of ammunition.
The report adds that "records show that DHS’s procurement of weapons at immense scale is just beginning, as these contract awards contemplate even greater spending moving forward," which it says should serve "as a stark warning to the American public."
Schiff's report concludes with a warning about the US Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) "growing plans to build a heavily-armed domestic police force," adding that federal immigration agents' killings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti could only be the first of many tragedies to come.
In an analysis of the Schiff report published Wednesday, the New Republic's Greg Sargent argued that the Trump administration is trying to launch a domestic "war on terrorism" by bringing the kind of violence the US has deployed overseas back to the homeland.
"In a sense, we’re seeing yet more cancerous growth of the post-September 11 national security bureaucracy, but with a more intensified inward focus," wrote Sargent, who described ICE and CBP under Trump as a "heavily armed secret police force" in a Wednesday social media post.
Georgetown University law professor Rosa Brooks told Sargent that the dangers posed by ICE and CBP could outlast Trump's presidency.
"Trump is building up a well-funded, poorly trained paramilitary force that could easily take on a life of its own,” Brooks explained. “Once you have a massive moneymaking machine ginned up, it’s hard to reverse course and turn off the spigot.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Records Shows That Trump, By His Own Definition, Is Guilty of Mortgage Fraud
“Given Trump’s position on situations like this, he’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice,” said one mortgage law expert.
Dec 08, 2025
As US President Donald Trump targets political opponents with dubious allegations of mortgage fraud, an investigation published Monday revealed the Republican leader once did the same thing as a senior official he is trying to fire.
In an August letter, Trump announced his termination of Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—for alleged fraud, accusing her of signing two primary residence mortgages within weeks of each other.
Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, has not been charged with any crime and has filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's attempt to fire her. In October, the US Supreme Court declined to immediately remove Cook and agreed to hear oral arguments on the case in January.
Trump called Cook's actions "deceitful and potentially criminal." However, ProPublica reviewed records showing that Trump "did the very thing he’s accusing his enemies of."
Trump committed mortgage fraud, according to Trump.Somehow I doubt his DOJ will go after him the way he instructed his DOJ to go after his political enemies over this.Every Republican accusation is a confession.
[image or embed]
— Melanie D’Arrigo (@darrigomelanie.bsky.social) December 8, 2025 at 5:47 AM
According to the publication:
In 1993, Trump signed a mortgage for a “Bermuda style” home in Palm Beach, Florida, pledging that it would be his principal residence. Just seven weeks later, he got another mortgage for a seven-bedroom, marble-floored neighboring property, attesting that it too would be his principal residence.
In reality, Trump, then a New Yorker, does not appear to have ever lived in either home, let alone used them as a principal residence. Instead, the two houses, which are next to his historic Mar-a-Lago estate, were used as investment properties and rented out, according to contemporaneous news accounts and an interview with his longtime real estate agent—exactly the sort of scenario his administration has pointed to as evidence of fraud...
Mortgage law experts who reviewed the records for ProPublica were struck by the irony of Trump’s dual mortgages. They said claiming primary residences on different mortgages at the same time, as Trump did, is often legal and rarely prosecuted. But Trump’s two loans, they said, exceed the low bar the Trump administration itself has set for mortgage fraud.
"Given Trump’s position on situations like this, he’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice,” Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor and leading expert on mortgage finance, told ProPublica. “Trump has deemed that this type of misrepresentation is sufficient to preclude someone from serving the country.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, responded to ProPublica's analysis in a statement slamming "Trump's mortgage fraud witch hunt."
"The cruel and lawless hypocrisy of Donald Trump using the levers of government to dig up so-called mortgage fraud on his perceived political opponents, while doing the very same, is blatant," Gilbert said in a statement.
A federal judge recently dismissed the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) criminal case against Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was charged with bank fraud and false statements regarding a property in Virginia. Critics called the charges against James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes—baseless and politically motivated. A federal grand jury subsequently rejected another administration attempt to indict James.
“The administration has used the idea of claiming a home as your primary residence without residing there to justify DOJ takedowns of Lisa Cook, Tish James, and more," Gilbert added. "If this is how they really feel, and the ProPublica reporting is accurate, then Donald Trump should be next in the DOJ crosshairs.”
ProPublica said that Trump hung up on one of its reporters who asked about similarities between his Florida mortgages and those of people targeted by his administration.
“President Trump’s two mortgages you are referencing are from the same lender," a White House spokesperson subsequently told the outlet. "There was no defraudation. It is illogical to believe that the same lender would agree to defraud itself.”
“President Trump has never, or will ever, break the law," the spokesperson falsely added.
Trump has accused other political foes, including US Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell—both California Democrats who played key roles in both of the president's House impeachments—of similar fraud. Swalwell is currently under formal criminal investigation. Both lawmakers deny the allegations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Kills Bill That Would Block Trump Boat Bombings and War on Venezuela
"Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice," said one retired US Army general.
Nov 06, 2025
Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers' assent, as required by law.
US senators voted 51-49 against the measure introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Two Republicans—Paul and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined Democrats and Independents in voting for the resolution.
"It's sad that only two Republicans voted in favor," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on X following the vote. "So much for 'America First' and for upholding their constitutional authority by stopping the executive branch from taking illegal military actions."
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a senior adviser to the group VoteVets, said in a statement that President Donald Trump "is waging a war that he unilaterally declared and refuses to get approved by the American people via their representation in Congress."
"It isn't just criminal and unconstitutional, it betrays those who did fight on battlefields and spilled blood to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," Eaton added. "Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice."
VoteVets' MG Paul Eaton (Ret) blasts GOP Senators for rejecting Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution. He says Trump is waging a "criminal and unconstitutional" war and betraying the principle that Americans shouldn't die without having a say in the matter, through their elected representatives.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) November 6, 2025 at 3:06 PM
The War Powers Resolution was passed over then-President Richard Nixon's veto in 1973 to affirm and empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and requires congressional approval of troop deployments exceeding 60 days.
It's been 63 days since the first-known Trump-ordered the first strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. At least 67 people have been killed in 16 such reported strikes since September 2, according to the Trump administration, which argues that it does not need congressional approval for the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:
As we speak, America’s largest aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford, is on its way to the Caribbean. It is part of the largest military buildup in our hemisphere that we’ve seen in decades. According to press reports, Donald Trump is considering military action on Venezuelan territory. But it also sounds like nobody really knows what the plan is, because like so many other things with Donald Trump, he keeps changing his mind. Who knows what he will do tomorrow?
Trump has also approved covert CIA action in Venezuela and has threatened to attack targets inside the oil-rich country. The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro recently claimed that his country’s security forces had captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a “false-flag attack” against the nation.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said after Thursday's vote: “Today, I was proud to once again cast my vote for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution. President Trump is acting against the Constitution by moving toward imminent attacks against Venezuela without congressional authorization. In doing so, he is risking endless military conflict with Venezuela and steamrolling over the right of every American to have a say in the use of US military force."
“Asserting Congress’s constitutional role in war is not some procedural detail; it is fundamental. Our government is based on checks and balances, and Congress’s authority to declare war is a core principle of what makes America a democracy," Markey added. "Going to war without consulting the people is what monarchies and dictatorships do. Strong democracies must be willing to debate these issues in the light of day.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Aim to Stop Trump 'From Dragging This Country Into War' With Venezuela
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
Nov 06, 2025
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘They’re Going to Be, Like, Dead’: Trump Says Land Strikes on Venezuela Are Next
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro demanded "no crazy war, please!" as the Trump administration showed no sign of dialing back its unlawful military attacks.
Oct 24, 2025
President Donald Trump set off alarms Thursday when he signaled his administration would soon escalate its military campaign in Latin America.
For the last seven weeks, the Trump administration has conducted military strikes against purported drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean that have killed at least 37 people so far.
Even though many legal experts and human rights advocates consider the attacks to be illegal acts of extrajudicial murder, Trump said during a law enforcement roundtable at the White House that he is going to soon expand the campaign to attack purported drug traffickers who are traveling by land as well.
As The New York Times noted, Trump said he's going to launch these strikes without seeking any authorization from the US Congress.
“I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war,” said Trump. “I think we are going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We are going to kill them, you know? They are going to be, like, dead.”
Trump: "I don't think we're necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war, I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We're going to kill them. They're going to be, like dead." pic.twitter.com/55NQXpZ0jf
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 23, 2025
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called Trump's comments a "blaring red warning signal for the rule of law."
The administration has claimed it is targeting boats to stop drug trafficking from Venezuela, despite the fact that the country is not a prominent source of either fentanyl or cocaine.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated on Wednesday that the US is going to approach its new War on Drugs in the same way it approached the War on Terror, the result of which was two failed military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
"Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere," Hegseth wrote in a Wednesday post on X. "Just as al-Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people. There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice."
Dozens of elected officials throughout Latin America on Thursday released a letter denouncing the Trump administration's military aggression in their regions, and France 24 reported on the same day that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro warned Trump against launching a "crazy war" against his nation.
"Yes peace, yes peace forever, peace forever. No crazy war, please!" said Maduro in a meeting with unions. The president has accused the Trump administration of seeking regime change.
Some US politicians have also denounced Trump's military aggression in Latin America.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) described Trump's boat attacks as a "stain on our moral conscience" and urged other lawmakers to speak up.
"This is not a time for the opposition party to be silent," he said. "We must speak out for our moral values and to stand against a new regime change war."
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that Trump must seek permission from Congress before launching any military strikes in Latin America.
"Legally, he is required to come to Congress," Schiff wrote on X. "Though he may not get the answer he expects. Americans don't want another war."
Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a longtime critic of US foreign interventionism, also said the president is required to go through Congress before taking any military action.
"The Constitution doesn’t permit a president to act as the legislature and judiciary on top of being the chief executive," he wrote. "If it’s war, he must go to Congress. If it’s crime, he must go to court. When there’s no imminent danger, there’s no justification for unilateral strikes."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) slammed the administration for trying to employ tactics that failed in the War on Terror to a fight that it claims is targeting narcotics trafficking.
"Now the Trump administration is talking about 'regime change' in Venezuela," he wrote. "When has that ever worked for us—in Cuba, Afghanistan, or anywhere else? This isn’t making us safer. It's having the opposite effect."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Launch Bipartisan Bid to Block Trump War on Venezuela
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela," said Sen. Adam Schiff. "And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war."
Oct 17, 2025
With President Donald Trump floating potential military action within Venezuela and authorizing operations by the Central Intelligence Agency after launching several deadly strikes on boats near the South American country, three lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Friday said they would force a new vote on blocking the White House from carrying out an attack there.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) last week introduced a measure to rein in Trump's bombing of boats in the Caribbean, which the White House has claimed are being used to traffic drugs into the US and present an imminent threat.
The measure failed, with one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) joining most of the GOP in opposing it and two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), supporting it.
Kaine and Schiff on Friday were reportedly hoping that a new bipartisan measure, introduced with Paul, would garner more support from the Republicans.
They said they would force a vote on a war powers resolution to block the use of force by US troops "within or against" Venezuela unless it was "explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force."
The 1973 War Powers Act requires Congress to consider and vote on resolutions regarding a president's power to enter an armed conflict without congressional authorization.
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America," said Schiff.
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere."
The lawmakers announced the resolution as it was reported that two survivors of the military's most recent drone strike on a boat have been detained by US forces, with legal experts questioning whether they are prisoners or war or criminal suspects.
The White House has insisted it is acting within its rights to defend US security by striking boats it believes are carrying drugs—even as details have emerged calling into doubt the allegations that the vessels pose a threat.
Venezuela is not a significant source of drugs that are trafficked into the US—a fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed when a reporter brought it up soon after the military began bombing boats, at least six of which have been struck so far. At least 27 people have been killed, and the grieving family of one victim spoke out Thursday and said they had not been involved in drug trafficking.
Even if the vessels were carrying illegal substances, legal experts and critics in Congress have stressed in recent weeks that they should be dealt with, as in the past, by federal law enforcement agencies, as Congress has not authorized military action against Venezuela or drug cartels.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote," said Paul. "We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war."
Kaine told reporters on Thursday the Congress' knowledge of legal rationale for the boat strikes amounts to “a complete black hole."
Meanwhile, Trump has suggested this week he could further escalate attacks on Venezuela, saying the Caribbean Sea is "very well under control"—even though Vice President JD Vance has joked that the US could accidentally strike fishing boats in its operations there.
"We are certainly looking at land now," Trump said Wednesday.
Kaine said he was "extremely troubled that the Trump administration is considering launching illegal military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” said Kaine. “If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an authorization for use of military force."
"I urge every senator to join us in stopping this administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict," said the senator.
The New York Times reported that Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) could potentially join the effort to pass the war powers resolution after voting against last week's measure, which he said was too broad.
"I am highly concerned," Young said after the vote last week, "about the legality of recent strikes in the Caribbean and the trajectory of military operations without congressional approval or debate and the support of the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Schiff Lists All the Questions Pam Bondi Refused to Answer During Contentious Senate Hearing
"This is supposed to be an oversight hearing!" Sen. Adam Schiff exclaimed after documenting Bondi's obstruction.
Oct 07, 2025
US Attorney General Pam Bondi received a grilling from Senate Democrats on Tuesday, although much of her testimony was notable for the numerous questions she refused to answer.
Near the conclusion of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that lasted nearly five hours, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) confronted Bondi by running down a list of questions asked his colleagues that she had either dodged or outright refused to answer.
Among other things, Schiff noted that Bondi refused to answer if she had consulted with professional ethics attorneys before she signed off on President Donald Trump receiving a $400 million luxury jet from the Qatari government; if she had played any role in allegedly ordering federal agents to flag any mentions of Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein criminal case files; if Trump border czar Tom Homan had kept a $50,000 cash bribe he allegedly received from undercover FBI agents; or if the DOJ had provided any legal guidance or justification for bombing attacks ordered by Trump on alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean.
Additionally, Schiff said that Bondi had refused to answer if she supported a "restoration fund" to pay money to Trump supporters who violently attacked the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021; if she had fired career Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors because of their work on January 6-related cases; and if she believed that government officials are obligated to abide by court rulings.
Schiff: I think it's valuable that the American people get a sense of what you have refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refuse to answer, but or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You were asked whether you consulted… pic.twitter.com/SP0l0PY082
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2025
After running down his list, Schiff exclaimed, "This is supposed to be an oversight hearing!"
This prompted Bondi to interject, to which Schiff replied, "You can attack me later, I know you have plenty of canned attacks, we've heard them all day."
Schiff then pivoted back to his original statement.
"This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department," he said. "And it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of this enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the... president."
At this point, Bondi interjected with an apparent non-sequitur.
"What about the fires in California, do you care about that, Sen. Schiff?" she demanded to know.
Shortly after, she suggested that Schiff should "apologize to Donald Trump for slandering him."
Schiff: This is supposed to be an oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president.
Bondi: What about the fires in California? Are the riots in LA serious? pic.twitter.com/GUkOQvBDxM
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2025
The day before the hearing, nearly 300 former DOJ employees released a letter blasting Bondi's leadership of the department, while accusing her and other administration officials of "taking a sledgehammer to... long-standing work the department has done to protect communities and the rule of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy