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 van hollen
'Words Are Not Enough': Senate Democrats Say Trump Must Take Action to Prevent More Mass Atrocities in Sudan
The US, said a group of senators led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, must suspend weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates, which arms the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.
Aug 04, 2026
Writing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Monday led 20 members of the Democratic Caucus in demanding that the Trump administration go beyond simply denouncing the Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group in Sudan that has been accused of war crimes in the country's civil war, and take "concrete action" to stop more mass atrocities as the group encircles the city of El Obeid.
"These actions should include ceasing certain US arms sales to external actors that are fueling this war, including the United Arab Emirates, which continues to arm the RSF," wrote the senators, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
The lawmakers wrote to Rubio as an estimated 500,000 civilians were at risk in El Obeid, where many people have sought safety following RSF attacks across the Kordofan region.
The letter came as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said civilians are facing drone attacks in El Obeid, with humanitarian assistance also put at risk by the assault.
A number of the signatories, including Van Hollen and Sanders, have previously called on the Trump administration to end its complicity in RSF attacks like those that occurred in El Fasher last October, which United Nations investigators said bore the "hallmarks of genocide" after the group killed more than 6,000 civilians in the first three days of its offensive in the besieged city.
The senators described attacks like those on El-Saudi Hospital in El Fasher, where RSF forces "proceeded to search the wards and killing those they found, including patients, accompanying persons and medical personnel," killing an estimated 460 people before pursuing civilians who tried to escape.
Reports described "the perpetrators chasing people in open fields, firing at them with automatic rifles and mounted submachine guns, and running over fleeing persons with vehicles, causing mass casualties," the senators wrote.
More than 14 million people have also been forcibly displaced by the civil war.
But the scale of atrocities would likely not have been possible without the RSF's support from the UAE, for which the Trump administration fast-tracked a weapons sale in May after having provided the country with $7 billion in weapons just two months earlier.
Also in May, said the senators, Human Rights Watch released a report showing that the UAE trained hundreds of Colombian mercenaries who then took part in the atrocities in El Fasher and trained RSF recruits, including child soldiers.
Now, they wrote, the RSF's "encirclement and systematic crippling of resources in El Obeid increasingly parallels El Fasher, and this administration must use its leverage and influence to prevent a repeat of El Fasher’s horrors in El Obeid before it is too late."
They pointed out that the administration has acknowledged that further "mass atrocities could be imminent” in Sudan, as a State Department spokesperson said on June 22. In November 2025, Rubio himself said that the RSF was "clearly receiving assistance from outside" and that “something needs to be done to cut off the weapons and the support the RSF is getting as they continue their advances.”
Despite those acknowledgments, said the senators, the Trump administration has shown a "grave failure to act despite the chorus of alarm bells."
"What occurred in El Fasher is a stark warning of what could unfold in El Obeid and across Sudan if this administration—and the international community—continues this current pattern of inaction," wrote Van Hollen and his colleagues.
"While we welcome the State Department’s expression of concern about the escalating situation in El Obeid, words are not enough," they said. "The United States must use the leverage and influence at our disposal to prevent further atrocities in El Obeid and help bring this brutal war in Sudan to an end."
The senators called for a response to their letter by August 17, urging the administration to provide "an update on what other actions the administration is taking, beyond just words, to prevent mass atrocities in El Obeid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
By 22-Point Margin, Americans Think Netanyahu Should Be Arrested on US Soil
"Prime Minister Netanyahu has a warrant out for his arrest for committing war crimes," said one Democratic senator. "He should be nowhere close to the Oval Office of the president of the United States."
Jul 28, 2026
As with his proposals for government-run grocery stores and a tax on the second homes owned by rich New Yorkers, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's recent call for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an accused war criminal, to be arrested on US soil sparked outrage among Trump administration officials and others on the right.
And just like his other proposals, despite the claims that the mayor's comments displayed "extreme views" and were dangerous and divisive, Mamdani's demand that the US execute the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrant for Netanyahu is broadly supported by the public.
A poll taken by The Economist/YouGov between July 25-27 found that 49% of Americans believe the US should arrest Netanyahu, who arrived in Washington, DC on Monday to meet with President Donald Trump and attend the late Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) funeral.
Just 27% of respondents said the US should not execute the warrant, while 23% were unsure, according to the poll released Tuesday.
Nearly a quarter of people who voted for Trump in 2024 agreed with Mamdani, as well as 21% of people who identified themselves as supporters of Trump's MAGA political movement. The view was also held by 68% of Democrats and 55% of Independents, as well as 24% of Republican voters.
Forty-seven percent of respondents also said they believed Netanyahu was guilty of war crimes.
With Americans increasingly disapproving of Israel and the powerful pro-Israel lobby, sympathizing with Palestinians, and now backing the arrest of Netanyahu by an "overwhelming margin," said the Institute for Middle East Understanding, Trump is nevertheless "welcoming him back into the White House to lobby for more impunity, more war, and more of our tax dollars going to Israel."
Columbia University professor Anthony Zenkus wrote that while nearly half of Americans believe the US should execute the ICC warrant, "we've got prominent Democrats and Republicans and their online supporters calling Mamdani a terrorist for wanting to do that very thing."
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, are among those who have condemned Mamdani's demand for Netanyahu's arrest. Waltz said the US would not execute the warrant because the country, like Israel, is not party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, and does not recognize the court's authority. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has threatened to "dismantle" the court.
On Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) denounced the White House for hosting the Israeli prime minister while Israel is "wrongfully detaining an American citizen," 20-year-old student Sama Safi, who was detained in the West Bank on June 2.
"As I speak, we've not been able to get justice for American citizens killed by violent Israeli settlers or by the IDF," Van Hollen continued, referring to the Israel Defense Forces. "As I speak, Palestinians in the West Bank are under violent assault by Israeli terrorists who are terrorizing Palestinian villages, lighting mosques on fire, torching cars, pushing Palestinians off their lands, killing innocent Palestinians."
"When Donald Trump meets with Bibi Netanyahu, things don't go well for the United States of America," said the senator, noting that five months after Israel convinced the administration to launch an "illegal war against Iran," American soldiers are being killed and injured in the region.
"On top of all that," said Van Hollen, "Prime Minister Netanyahu has a warrant out for his arrest for committing war crimes. He should be nowhere close to the Oval Office of the president of the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
No, Friends on the Left, We Shouldn’t Tax Hardworking Americans Into Poverty
Many of those who would adamantly oppose the creation of a society where the income tax impoverishes struggling workers to enable those with seven-figure incomes to pay low rates are working overtime to maintain that very same situation.
Jul 22, 2026
Imagine this 2029 scenario: Americans making $1,000,001 or more per year have a slightly higher federal income tax rate than they currently do, while Americans who can’t afford to put food on the table—the ones who make less than what it takes to cover basic living expenses—don’t pay federal income taxes at all. Now imagine that President JD Vance proposes to cut the income tax rates of those with incomes over $1 million and to recover the lost revenue by taxing the working poor even further into poverty.
How many Democratic politicians would vote for that? How many left-leaning think tanks would write white papers supporting it? And how many left-leaning activist groups would lobby in support of it? NONE.
Unfortunately, the very tax structure that hypothetical proposal envisions already exists. Yet, amazingly, many of those who would adamantly oppose the creation of a society where the income tax impoverishes struggling workers to enable those with seven-figure incomes to pay low rates are working overtime to maintain that very same situation.
Recognizing that taxing hardworking people into poverty is both morally wrong and economically asinine, earlier this year, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) introduced the Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act (WATCA). Twenty-one senators and 13 representatives have signed on. The AFL-CIO has endorsed WATCA, as have the American Federation of Teachers, Oxfam, Americans for Tax Fairness, Take on Wall Street, and nearly a dozen other tax and justice organizations.
WATCA is based on the simple concept that workers with incomes equal to or less than the basic cost of living should not be required to divert income needed for basic necessities to pay federal income tax. WATCA provides an exemption from federal income tax for income up to the basic cost of living, $46,000 per year for a single American with no children, and recovers the lost tax revenue with a surtax on incomes over $1 million.
Criticism of WATCA has been fast and furious, coming mostly from folks who purport to advocate for average Americans. Their commentary, which can be found in American Prospect, Democracy, The New York Times, and even Rolling Stone, is chock-full of concocted reasons why continuing to oppressively tax struggling Americans is a fine idea. Mostly, their arguments are a repackaged version of billionaire Republican Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) idea that he pushed in 2022 that the income tax requires all Americans to have “skin in the game.” Scott’s idea bombed badly—so badly, in fact, that he shelved it after just a few months.
The Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act fixes a fundamental structural flaw in the federal income tax: We’re taxing those with no ability to pay into poverty, while maintaining top rates that are absurdly low.
The words used by WATCA critics differ, although often not by very much, but the concept is the same. A Roosevelt Institute blog post explains how tax policy should “bind us all to one another.” In an impressive mental gymnastics routine, former Larry Summers acolyte Natasha Sarin acknowledges that ordinary Americans are “right to resent a tax system that’s skewed against them,” but that making those at the top pay their fair share would not be enough, so it’s the civic duty of everyone, no matter their level of income, to pay federal income tax. In Democracy, writers from the Tax Law Center at NYU Law, including two Obama and Biden administration alums, somehow manage to start by recognizing that the income tax "embodies the principle that the government should be financed based on ability to pay” yet end by attacking a proposal based on its recognition of the inability of those with income below the basic cost of living—or income below any threshold for that matter—to pay income tax.
You can’t top the tone-deafness of a billionaire Republican senator insisting that all Americans pay income tax to have “skin in the game.” But you know what comes close? A group of ivory-tower policy wonks ensconced in air-conditioned offices and drawing comfortable six-figure salaries insisting that exempting janitors making $40,000 a year from federal income tax would be a tragic policy mistake. No, they don’t use the phrase “skin in the game,” but they may as well.
And let’s be clear, all Americans have a lot of skin in the tax game whether or not they pay federal income tax. In fact, if Social Security and Medicare taxes were labeled to reflect what they actually are—income taxes—all but the lowest income Americans would be considered to be paying federal income tax.
Other attacks on the Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act are equally off base. The second favored theme is to mischaracterize WATCA as a middle-class tax cut. That attack line seizes on the reality that it’s never possible to craft a tax bill that precisely addresses its underlying policy objective. Exempting income up to the basic cost of living from income tax unavoidably confers an incidental benefit on those with incomes at a slightly higher level, a benefit that is rapidly phased out under WATCA.
So, yes, Americans with incomes considered middle class stand to benefit from WATCA. The benefit, however, becomes vanishingly smaller as income increases into middle-class range. But that didn’t stop former Biden National Economic Council member Bharat Ramamurti from referring to WATCA as a “very sweeping middle-class tax cut” which he suggested reflected poor prioritization. Consider how flat Ramamurti’s criticism would fall had he said that a tax cut for underpaid workers struggling to make rent reflected poor prioritization.
The Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act fixes a fundamental structural flaw in the federal income tax: We’re taxing those with no ability to pay into poverty, while maintaining top rates that are absurdly low. We can quibble about the details of fixing that flaw. Maybe the basic cost of living in America is not exactly $46,000. Maybe the cost-of-living exemption should be phased out over a narrower income range.
When our organization, Patriotic Millionaires, worked with congressional offices to develop WATCA, we fully expected commentary along those lines. But ironically enough, there has been remarkably little of it. Instead, we’re hearing that the fundamental structural flaw—and the misery it inflicts on struggling workers—should be left unaddressed. And as a result of their moral ambivalence, we’re left with a Democratic Party that can’t understand why working-class Americans have left them. We can.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Urged to Reject Trump's $88 Billion Request for Iran War That ‘Everyone Hates’
"This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Jun 25, 2026
The Trump administration is facing pushback after it formally asked the US Congress to approve $88 billion in supplemental funding that will primarily be used to pay for President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
In a letter sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said that most of the requested funding "will address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury (OEF), in addition to other critical needs such as responding to the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa and supporting hardworking American farmers."
Many congressional Democrats, however, were not eager to go along with the administration's $88 billion request.
"Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth are now asking for $88 BILLION more for their illegal war in Iran," wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in a Thursday social media post. "Just as I predicted, they are pairing this money with other priorities to buy votes for this war. The American people shouldn't backfill this blunder. Not another dime!"
Van Hollen was joined in his opposition to further war funding by his colleague Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Senate Democrats' top appropriator, who said she would not "rubber-(stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
Murray also highlighted the opportunity cost of the president's war.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare," the Washington Democrat said, "but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, similarly noted that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
Elected officials aren't the only ones signaling opposition to the Trump administration's request.
Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that Trump is asking Congress for more money even though he completely bypassed the legislature when launching the war in late February.
"About six weeks ago, the Pentagon put the cost of the Iran War at $29 billion," Ellis said. "Now they want more than twice that? Either the administration wasn’t being honest about the costs then, or they aren’t being honest about the costs now."
Ellis also pointed out that the US Department of Defense is still sitting on roughly $100 billion in unobligated funds it could tap to replenish the munitions used in the illegal war.
"The need to address certain munitions shortfalls resulting from the war is real, but the Pentagon already has plenty of funds to do so," he explained, "and any future investments beyond that should happen through the regular budget process, not through a partisan reconciliation bill or a slapdash supplemental."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said it appeared Trump was making this supplemental funding request because he knew Congress would not approve the unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense budget he proposed.
"Hegseth and Trump are circling back to their first deeply unpopular option for increasing the Pentagon budget—a supplemental funding bill for an illegal war on Iran that nobody asked for and everyone hates," said Weissman. "This effort, like the others, will fail."
Weissman warned members of Congress against supporting any additional funding requested by the administration, which he said Trump and Hegseth would likely take as approval for "launching more illegal and unconstitutional wars and military actions."
"And no so-called sweetener should make any difference whatsoever," he emphasized. "This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, urged Democrats to uniformly reject Trump's request.
"No Democratic lawmaker should bow to Trump’s demand that working Americans pay even more for his disastrous war on Iran," Williams said. "Funds to replenish stockpiles can come from elsewhere in the already bloated, record-high Pentagon budget—or tax the oil and arms investors who made a killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Warnings of Atrocities in Sudan, Van Hollen Says Senate 'Missed Opportunity' to Cut Off Arms to UAE
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan," the senator said. "We should actually be using our leverage."
Jun 24, 2026
After the US State Department warned earlier this week of imminent “atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday criticized the US Senate for missing a recent opportunity to cut off weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which has supplied the genocidal paramilitary group.
On Monday, the State Department warned that RSF forces were massing near the city of El-Obeid and could commit “mass atrocities” against civilians if allowed to take the city.
"The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure that those seeking safety can do so without fear or obstruction," the department said.
The statement echoed concerns expressed last week by a coalition of states at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said that roughly 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people, could be at risk of violence if RSF escalated its assault.
UN human rights experts have said RSF's October offensive in Darfur bore the "hallmarks of genocide," with more than 6,000 people killed and numerous civilians tortured, raped, and starved during a three-day rampage across the city of El-Fasher.
But while Trump's State Department has sanctioned some entities accused of supplying fighters for the RSF, the Monday statement made no mention of the UAE, which rights groups point out is the group’s principal foreign backer.
A report issued last year by Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) found that the UAE was continuing to provide weapons to the RSF despite telling the US that it was not.
Following previous failed attempts at pushing Congress to impose an arms embargo on Sudan through standalone legislation, Van Hollen attempted to do so again last week by tacking a pair of amendments onto the bipartisan PEACE in Sudan Act, which requires the State Department to assess designating armed Sudanese groups as terrorists and allows Trump to impose optional sanctions on foreign actors funding the war, but stopped short of introducing any hard leverage.
At a markup session for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Van Hollen introduced an amendment banning the US from selling or transferring military equipment to the UAE as long as it continues supporting the RSF. The amendment failed in a 15-7 vote, with four Democrats—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (Nev.)—joining every Republican on the committee, aside from Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), in opposition.
A second amendment, which did not single out the UAE specifically but restricted arms sales to any country arming either side of the conflict, also failed 13-9, but received support from Shaheen and Rosen.
Coons said he'd have "enthusiastically" supported the amendment, but voted no because he believed it would "bring down" the broader Sudan bill in a GOP-controlled Senate. Duckworth did not explain her reasoning for voting no.
In light of the State Department's warning this week about RSF's march toward El-Obeid, Van Hollen told a Drop Site News reporter on Tuesday that he believed the no vote on his amendments "was a missed opportunity."
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan. We should actually be using our leverage," he said.
Noting that Trump likely would not support a restriction on arms to the UAE given his extensive financial entanglements with the Emiratis and his previous policy of fast-tracking weapons to the country without any strings attached, Van Hollen said his goal was simply to "keep the pressure on."
He said, "We need to keep showing the hypocrisy of the Trump administration policy, where they claim they want to do something but refuse to take some of the basic actions we can take as a country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Democratic Party Must End Whitewashing, Admit ‘Complicity’ in Gaza Genocide
"Primary voters won’t trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues."
May 26, 2026
A senior Senate Democrat said his party needs to own up to its "complicity" in Israel's genocide in Gaza and attacks on Palestinians, and warned against reinstating the foreign policy officials from the Biden administration who have enabled them.
In a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has visited the occupied Palestinian territories multiple times since October 7, 2023—wrote that "Democrats need to face a hard truth," that their party "has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values."
Seeming to recognize the overwhelming shift in opinion against Israel among the US public, and especially Democratic voters, over the last two-plus years, the senator said Americans “do not want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, or what human rights organizations and scholars have determined to be genocide in Gaza.”
The things he witnessed firsthand while visiting the region—the ruins of Gaza left behind by US-provided bombs, the "apartheid system" in the West Bank, and the accelerating forced displacement of Palestinians by violent West Bank settlers—he said, were the responsibility of "both Republican and Democratic administrations."
While noting President Donald Trump's role in legitimizing Israel's expansionist project during his first term, Van Hollen said former President Joe Biden "failed to reverse most of these actions, even as Israel elected the most extremist government in its history" and after October 7, "failed to use US leverage as Israel imposed devastating collective punishment on the people of Gaza."
He said Democrats must pursue a “last-gasp effort” to revive the idea of a “two-state solution,” which he acknowledged Israel’s gradual annexation of the West Bank has made increasingly untenable.
"Presidents have paid lip service to that goal even as Israeli settlements stretched into the West Bank. This time must be different. The United States must draw a red line against Palestinian displacement, and we must enforce it," Van Hollen said, calling for the US to restrict “offensive” weapons to Israel until it agrees to a plan to end the occupation of Palestinian territory and one for a two-state solution.
Van Hollen said “Democrats must stand firm against... headwinds” like the powerful influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has used its vast resources to target candidates who criticize Israel.
"Primary voters won’t trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues, especially if, as a legislator, he or she voted to send [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu bombs even as his government imposed a total blockade on Gaza," Van Hollen said. "Nor will they support a candidate who plans to re-enlist the senior Democratic decision makers who whitewashed the truth during the Biden administration and refuse to acknowledge their complicity."
"Democrats failed to meet the moment in 2024," he concluded. "Americans were rightly fed up with Democratic hypocrisy and complicity in the gross violation of the values we profess to hold dear. That, in turn, hurt our credibility with voters. We cannot let that happen again."
Van Hollen’s message comes as many of the senior figures who architected Biden’s “blank check” policy toward Netanyahu attempt to rehabilitate their images in a Democratic Party where Israel is now persona non grata.
As Harrison Mann—an ex-intelligence professional who resigned in protest over Gaza—recently wrote, these officials are “popping up everywhere” in the second Trump era with words of measured contrition.
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged in March during a speech at Harvard that the US “maybe” could have acted more quickly to force Israel to accept a ceasefire, "such that the suffering the people endured, the loss of the children, so many others, could have been averted." Jake Sullivan, Biden's former national security adviser, now says that the US should withhold weapons from Israel, a policy he opposed during his time in the White House.
Prior to Van Hollen, another top Democrat, Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the caucus’s chief deputy whip, made a similar plea—without naming names—that the next Democratic presidential administration cannot simply invite these same establishment figures back into positions of authority.
"I’m not into black listing anyone from future work in their area of expertise, but I do think it’s fair to want a whole new crop of foreign policy staffers in the next democratic administration," Schatz wrote on social media Sunday. "It’s not like the same 120 people are the only people who know anything."
Van Hollen has previously been more pointed in saying that figures in both parties who supported the genocide "should be held accountable for US complicity in the man-made humanitarian disaster, indiscriminate killings, and massive destruction we have witnessed in Gaza."
Adam Johnson, a journalist at The Intercept who recently wrote a book about the role of the media and the Biden administration in "selling" the genocide to the American public, criticized Van Hollen for refusing to use the term directly (instead defaulting to the less explicit phrase "ethnic cleansing").
However, Johnson said it was a good sign [that] this is becoming more and more conventional wisdom.“ He said the ”next step“ was to ”name names and make specific commitments" regarding the policies the party should and should not promote in Israel and Palestine.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Launch Probe Into Hegseth's Gutting of Programs to Mitigate US Killing of Civilians
"The high human toll of this war reflects the administration’s broader disregard for the strategic, legal, and moral imperative to minimize civilian harm."
Apr 21, 2026
A group of Democratic senators has opened an investigation into Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's assault on federal programs and personnel tasked with mitigating civilian harm in US wars, cuts that helped pave the way for atrocities the American military has committed in Iran over the past seven weeks.
In a Monday letter led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the Democratic lawmakers cite the US missile strike on an elementary school in southern Iran—which killed more than 100 children on the first day of the war—as evidence of the Trump administration's "broader disregard for the strategic, legal, and moral imperative to minimize civilian harm."
Prior to the start of the Iran war, the Democrats note in their letter, Hegseth "reportedly overruled top military leaders and made deep cuts to [the Department of Defense's] mitigation and response (CHMR) programs, fired personnel at DoD’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence (CPCoE) and slashed CHMR staff at the US combatant commands 'by more than 90%.'"
"This included eliminating the entire civilian harm office at Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), removing civilian harm specialists from target development strike teams, and reducing the team of 10 at US Central Command (CENTCOM) to only one full time staff," the letter reads. "Your attempts to gut DoD’s civilian harm institutions contradicts more than a decade of bipartisan consensus and DoD-led reforms, initiated during the first Trump administration, to systematically prevent, and address civilian harm in DoD operations."
The lawmakers also point to Hegseth's public expressions of contempt for "stupid rules of engagement" and "tepid legality," both of which the Pentagon has said get in the way of "maximum lethality." Hegseth also said roughly two weeks into the Iran war that "no quarter" would be given to "our enemies" in Iran—a statement that experts said was a clear violation of international law and a war crime.
"These statements not only harm civilians and undermine established standards, but also endanger US servicemembers with greater risk of reciprocation and erode good order and discipline," the senators write.
Hegseth, the Trump administration's top cheerleader for the war of choice in Iran, is currently facing five articles of impeachment in the US House of Representatives, including one stating that the Pentagon chief has "authorized, condoned, or failed to prevent the use of military force in a manner inconsistent with the law of armed conflict, such as operations resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including a girls’ school in Minab."
Separately, the Pentagon leader is also facing scrutiny over a recent report alleging that his investment broker tried to purchase millions of dollars worth of defense industry stocks weeks before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran.
Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, formally asked the chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to "investigate any attempt by Secretary Hegseth or any other individual to trade on the basis of misappropriated insider information."
"If accurate, the recent public reporting suggests that, prior to launching a military conflict that he was instrumental in planning, the secretary of defense may have misappropriated top secret military information for personal financial gain," Warren wrote. "The SEC must do its part to stem corrupt actions that threaten market integrity and national security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Memorializing Children Massacred in Minab, Progressive Lawmakers Demand 'Not One More Bomb' Be Dropped on Iran
"Our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
Mar 18, 2026
The lawn outside the US Capitol building was strewn with colorful backpacks and children's shoes on Wednesday afternoon as progressive members of Congress called for an end to President Donald Trump's "illegal" war with Iran.
They were there to memorialize the 168 children, mostly girls aged 7-12, who were killed when the United States bombed an elementary school in Minab on February 28 in the opening salvo of a war that has gone on to claim the lives of more than 2,000 people, including more than 300 children, according to reports from Iranian and Lebanese health authorities.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said each backpack and pair of shoes represented "an Iranian child who should still be with us today... but they were struck down by a Tomahawk missile."
Van Hollen described it as a consequence of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's crusade against what he's derided as "stupid rules of engagement."
"Those rules of engagement are designed to prevent civilian harm," the senator said. "They're designed to prevent a war crime."
The lawmakers described Trump's attack on Iran as a "war of choice" and an act of aggression that violated international law.
"There was no imminent threat" from Iran, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "There is certainly no plan for this war, and most importantly, there is no authorization from Congress."
Shortly after the war was launched, War Powers Resolutions seeking to rein in Trump's ability to use force without authorization narrowly failed in both the House and the Senate, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure.
The White House is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in supplemental funding to cover the cost of the Iran war on top of the more than $990 billion Congress has already authorized in last summer's GOP budget bill and the latest funding package.
Most Democrats have taken a firm line against more funding, which would require seven of their votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, though some pro-war Democrats have signaled a willingness to fund the war, according to reporting earlier this month.
"Civilians in Iran aren't the only ones who are paying the price," said Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.). "Our service members and the American people are too."
She noted that 13 members of the US military have been killed since the war was launched less than two weeks ago, saying, "I fear that this number will grow."
Based on Pentagon estimates provided to Congress earlier this month, the war is projected to have already cost US taxpayers more than $24 billion as of Wednesday.
Jacobs said she would oppose "any defense supplemental package" because "every dollar Congress spends on this war without ever authorizing it tells this president and every future president that they can drag this country into any conflict they want and dare us to defund the troops."
"From Palestine to Iran, our bombs are killing women, they're killing children... our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
She called for Congress to pass her Block the Bombs Act, which would cut off "offensive" US military funding to Israel, and to pass a war powers resolution limiting Trump's authority to continue striking Iran.
"Not one more dollar for a war with Iran," Ramirez said. "Not one more excuse, not one more bomb."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Facts Don't Matter to Greenblatt': Khanna Hits Back After Attack by ADL CEO
The California Democratic lawmaker slammed Jonathan Greenblatt as "a Trump apologist who attacked Obama's nuclear deal, defends Elon, and is basically a shill for the Trump administration and Netanyahu. Sad to see."
Mar 17, 2026
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Tuesday hit back at Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt after he accused the California Democrat of enabling antisemitism.
As reported by Jewish Insider, Greenblatt accused Khanna (D-Calif.) of using an antisemitic dog whistle when he blamed "neoconservatives" for President Donald Trump's decision to launch an unprovoked military strike against Iran.
Greenblatt also slammed Khanna for appearing on the podcast of Hasan Piker, a critic of Israel whom the ADL chief described as "one of the most virulent, outspoken antisemitic influencers in the world."
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tells 2026 Never is Now conference that it's "anti-Semitic" to blame Israel for the war on Iran that Israel started.
He accuses Sen. Chris Van Hollen of anti-Semitism for blaming "AIPAC" and slams Rep. Ro Khanna for blaming "neocons" and saying he's… pic.twitter.com/3MpTxFiSwE
— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) March 17, 2026
In addition to going after Khanna, Greenblatt attacked Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) for accusing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of being "un-American" during an address at a conference hosted by J Street, a liberal Zionist organization that in the past has clashed with AIPAC.
In a social media post, Khanna accused Greenblatt of being a partisan shill with a history of overlooking antisemitism from his political allies in the Republican Party.
"Facts don't matter to Greenblatt," Khanna wrote. "He is a Trump apologist who attacked [former President Barack] Obama's nuclear deal, defends Elon [Musk], and is basically a shill for the Trump administration and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. Sad to see. He has zero respect among any House Democrats anymore."
Shortly after this, Khanna responded to a social media post from AIPAC and suggested that the group merge with Greenblatt's ADL.
"Greenblatt you've sucked up enough to Trump you can probably get the merger approved in this administration," Khanna wrote.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took note of Khanna's defiant reaction to Greenblatt's attacks and argued it showed how much clout the ADL had lost in recent years under his leadership.
"There was a time when the head of the ADL saying this about two prominent Democrats would’ve mattered," he observed, "but Greenblatt has effectively marginalized himself with exactly this kind of reckless slander."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim also argued that Greenblatt had made himself irrelevant by so aggressively hitting critics of Israel with charges of antisemitism.
"Has anyone been worse at his actual job than Jonathan Greenblatt?" he wrote. "If he wants to be an advocate for Likud in DC, he should just do that. Be direct. This thing where he weaponizes concerns about antisemitism to boost Likud is outrageous and also not working."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Commerce Secretary Admits He Did, In Fact, Go to Epstein’s Island
Sen. Chris Van Hollen told Howard Lutnick he "misled the country and the Congress" when he claimed to have cut off ties with the billionaire sex offender.
Feb 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary admitted during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday that he lied to the public about his relationship with the billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was his next-door neighbor for 13 years.
As suspicion swirled around the president over his own ties to the infamous predator, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed on a podcast last year that he'd been horrified after meeting Epstein once at his New York City apartment in 2005, during which he said the financier made sexual innuendoes and showed off his massage table to Lutnick and his wife.
Lutnick said he then vowed to “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again." He added: “I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going, because he’s gross."
But emails released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) late last month have revealed that Lutnick maintained a relationship with Epstein until 2018, just a year before his death in jail, and a full decade after the financier had been convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute.
Not only did Lutnick meet with Epstein for drinks and meals on multiple occasions and go into business with him, but he also made arrangements in 2012 to meet with Epstein on his private Caribbean island, where victims say sexual abuse of minors was rampant.
After facing bipartisan calls to resign from his post amid the new revelations, Lutnick appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, where he again attempted to wriggle out of the accusation that he'd remained cozy with Epstein.
"Of these millions and millions of documents, there may be 10 connecting me with him... over a 14-year period," Lutnick said. "I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person, OK?"
Unconvinced by the denial, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Lutnick if he'd ever made the visit to Epstein's island that was outlined in the 2012 email.
Lutnick admitted he did, in fact, have lunch with Epstein during what he described as a "family vacation."
"My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple. They were there as well with their children. And we had lunch on the island," he admitted.
He said they were there for about "an hour" and that nothing "untoward" occurred while he was there. He clarified that he left "with all of my children" and everyone else who'd accompanied him, including their nannies.
Notably, one of those nannies is the subject of another email sent to Epstein from his accountant, Richard Kahn, in 2013. In the email, Kahn tells Epstein: "Attached is a resume of Lutnick's nanny. I am trying to arrange a time... for you to meet her."
During the hearing, Lutnick said he was surprised to learn that the nanny appeared in the email and that, as far as he knows, she never met Epstein.
Van Hollen said that there was reason to believe Lutnick "misled the country and the Congress" when he suggested that he'd cut off all contact with Epstein.
Speaking of Lutnick's meeting at the island, Van Hollen said: "You realize that this visit took place after he'd been convicted. You made a very big point of saying you sensed this was a bad person in 2005, and then, of course, in 2008 he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor. And yet, you went and had this trip and had other interactions."
Van Hollen said that even if Lutnick himself was not accused of wrongdoing with Epstein, the fact that he misled the public is worthy of shame.
“That does call into question your fitness for the job you now hold, and the question of your credibility before this committee and the Congress,” the senator said.
Van Hollen also asked about another gathering mentioned in the emails, which supposedly happened in 2011 and included Lutnick and other prominent figures, such as the filmmaker Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn. (Previn is the adopted daughter of Allen's ex, Mia Farrow. Another adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, accused Allen of sexual assault, which he denied.)
After initially denying that the dinner took place, Lutnick said he didn't know what Van Hollen was referring to, then said there was a document in the tranche of files suggesting he'd met with Epstein again for only an hour and that they did not have dinner.
"I looked through the millions of documents for my name just like everybody else," Lutnick said.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) later appeared astonished by that statement.
“No," he said, "everyone isn’t worried about their names being in the Epstein files."
Following the hearing, calls for Lutnick to step down have only grown louder.
"Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s secretary of commerce, lied about his connection to Epstein, helped source a 'nanny' for Epstein, [and] visited rape island AFTER Epstein pled guilty to sex crimes," wrote Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)
McGovern also mentioned a $50,000 donation Epstein made in 2017 to a dinner keepingLutnick and another investor, which was put on by the Jewish philanthropic organization UJA-Federation of New York. Emails show that Epstein was offered 10 seats to attend the event but declined, saying Lutnick could fill them.
"This has gone on long enough," McGovern said. "Lutnick is a liar, and he needs to resign."
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