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
chris deluzio
GOP Leaders Silent After State Lawmaker Called for Rep. Jayapal to Be 'Hanged'
Top Republicans have claimed that calling Trump “fascist” or “authoritarian” is an incitement to “terrorism." But party leaders have said nothing about an explicit call for violence from one of their own.
Sep 30, 2025
It has now been almost a full week since a Republican Arizona state representative called for the execution of Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal. But top Republicans in Congress and the White House have remained silent, even as they blame the left for escalating "political violence."
On Wednesday, in response to an out-of-context clip from Jayapal's (D-Wash.) YouTube channel posted to social media, state Rep. John Gillette (R-30) wrote that the Washington state Democrat—who discussed how protesters could become "strike ready or street ready"—was calling for the overthrow of the federal government.
“Until people like this, that advocate for the overthrow of the American government are tried convicted and hanged... it will continue,” he wrote on X.
Video: Arizona's Family (3TV/CBS5)
But when the full video, published in March and titled "The Resistance Lab," was unearthed by the Arizona Mirror, it showed that Jayapal was discussing how to plan "nonviolent resistance actions." In fact, over the course of the hour-and-a-half training video, the words "nonviolent" and "nonviolence" were said a total of at least 18 times by Jayapal and other speakers.
"Getting strike ready," meanwhile, was a call for labor union members to prepare for work stoppages, which are legal.
Gillette has not apologized for his call to hang Jayapal. In fact, he doubled down, referring to the Mirror's reporting that he called for Jayapal's execution as "fake news," and reiterating the false claim that Jayapal "openly advocates for the violent overthrow of the US government."
On Friday, Jayapal issued a statement calling Gillette's comments "appalling, unacceptable, and dangerous from anyone, but particularly from an elected official."
Other Democratic lawmakers were quick to condemn the comments. Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.) said Gillette "must be held accountable for inciting violence against a member of Congress." Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Gillette's incitement "puts [Jayapal] and all active participants in our democracy in danger." Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called the comments "sick and wrong" and said that "Republican leaders need to condemn this heinous call for violence, and there needs to be real accountability."
As of Tuesday, not a single Republican in Congress appears to have publicly condemned Gillette's comments—a deafening silence at a time when top members of the party, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have attempted to blame Democrats' rhetoric for recent acts of violence, like the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and last week's shooting at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Dallas.
On Friday, as part of a new strategy to combat what it calls "left-wing domestic terrorism," Donald Trump directed law enforcement to "disrupt" individuals and groups “that foment political violence,” including “before they result in violent political acts.” Possible "indicators" of terrorism, the memo says, include "anti-capitalism," "anti-Christianity," and “hostility” toward traditional views on family or “morality.”
Top Trump ally Steve Bannon told the New Republic that he expects the government will begin to criminally investigate and prosecute groups and individuals that describe ICE as "authoritarian," agreeing with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller that such First Amendment-protected criticism "incites violence and terrorism."
Following Kirk's assassination and the ICE shooting, liberal and leftist politicians, journalists, and activists across the board rushed to unequivocally condemn both acts of political violence, even while stating their disagreements with Kirk and with Trump's immigration policies.
Common Dreams contacted the offices of both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) to ask if they would publicly condemn Gillette’s comments and urge others in their caucus to do the same. At press time, neither had responded.
No public condemnations appear to have come from Trump, Vance, or any other members of the Trump administration.
The local news network Arizona’s Family (3TV/CBS5) said it reached out to the office of Arizona’s House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-21) to ask if Gillette would face any discipline over his comments. The office did not respond.
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) harshly criticized their silence.
"Patriots don’t cower and meekly hide from condemning their political allies when they do stuff like this," he said. "Everybody should be condemning this call for violence. Period."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters Again Shown to Prefer Populism Over Neoliberal 'Abundance' Agenda in New Research
"Majorities of Democrats and independents and two in five Republicans believe the outsized power of billionaires and corporations in our government is a bigger problem than red tape and bureaucracy."
Sep 04, 2025
A new strategy memo written by a progressive think tank and a pair of high-profile Democratic Party operatives makes the latest case that a populist economic message will help the party more than a message centered around the so-called "abundance" agenda, Politico reported on Thursday.
The memo—which was written by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin and Democratic strategist Brian Fallon, in collaboration with Groundwork Collaborative—uses polling and focus group data to argue that a sharp populist message is more effective at winning back working-class voters than a message focused on cutting regulations in order to build more housing and infrastructure.
"While there are elements of the Abundance agenda that have appeal, and the choice on which messages to deliver is not zero-sum, a populist economic approach better solves for Democrats' challenges with working-class voters," the memo states. "If candidates are asking which focus deserves topmost billing in Democrats' campaign messaging, the answer is clear: Though some voters believe excessive bureaucracy can be a problem, it ranks far behind other concerns and tackling it does not strike voters as a direct response to the problem of affordability."
The memo went on to argue that "majorities of Democrats and independents and two in five Republicans believe the outsized power of billionaires and corporations in our government is a bigger problem than red tape and bureaucracy."
In a head-to-head messaging test, voters told researchers that government giving preference to large corporations and billionaires was a bigger problem than government bureaucracy causing inefficiencies by a nearly two-to-one ratio. By roughly the same ratio, the researchers found, voters preferred cracking down on price-gouging corporations to cutting bureaucratic red tape.
The researchers did credit abundance-centric messaging with generating "some fresh ideas that challenge the status quo," but warned that "there are significant questions about whether a focus on it in political messaging adequately meets the moment Democrats face today.
The memo is set to be presented to Democrats on Capitol Hill next week, and Politico noted that it has the support of Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), who represents a competitive congressional district and who in the past has embraced populist messaging.
The "abundance" movement got its name after a book released earlier this year by journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, who both argued that Democratic-led state governments have put up too many bureaucratic roadblocks to achieve ambitious goals such as affordable housing and high-speed rail.
Some critics of the book, however, argue that it fails to address issues such as corporate power and wealth inequality as the real roadblocks to progressive change.
As Common Dreams reported last week, a recent analysis by Revolving Door Project and Open Markets Institute detailed how the abundance movement "erroneously" claims that environmental reviews hinder clean energy progress while having little to say about "the real causes of delay," including interference by fossil fuel-backed politicians and profit-driven privately-owned utilities.
The memo's release comes just as an "Abundance" conference is set to kick off in Washington, DC on Thursday that will include Klein and Thompson as featured speakers, as well as Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular