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
congress
250+ Groups Have Single Message: 'Not One More Penny' for 'Foolish, Destructive' Iran War
"Every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on healthcare and affordable housing in America."
Mar 12, 2026
On the heels of Pentagon officials privately telling Congress that just the first six days of President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on Iran cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups on Thursday collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war on Iran, including the reported supplemental appropriations bill that could provide $50 billion or more."
"By launching a war against Iran, Trump has violated the Constitution, defied international law, flouted the will of the American people, and has put millions of lives across the region at risk," wrote the coalition, led by the ACLU, MoveOn, Public Citizen, and Win Without War. Other signatories include Common Cause, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, National Nurses United, Oxfam America, and the Service Employees International Union.
"President Trump's illegal war has already shown the costs war imposes—American service members killed and injured, thousands of civilians killed in fighting, skyrocketing oil prices, a conflict spiraling over a dozen countries in unexpected ways, and more," noted Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's Technology and Democracy Division.
In addition to the joint operation against Iran, Israel is bombing Lebanon and has again cut off the Gaza Strip from humanitarian aid. Iran has retaliated by targeting Gulf states that host US military bases.
The coalition warned Congress that "a vote for President Trump's Pentagon supplemental funding package would be a vote to commit the US even further to this crisis, which has already killed seven US service members and nearly 2,000 people from across the region, and which endangers the lives of many more."
The letter stresses that the US Constitution empowers only Congress to declare war. Despite this, a short list of Democrats and nearly all Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives have refused to advance war powers resolutions that would end Trump's war of choice in Iran.
"Waging a war of choice that costs an estimated $1 billion a day not only fails to address the economic squeeze and healthcare crisis facing working Americans, it also diverts federal funding that could otherwise be utilized," the letter argues. Sara Haghdoosti, chief of program for MoveOn Civic Action, declared that "every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on healthcare and affordable housing in America."
The National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, another signatory, has previously highlighted that the war's estimated daily price tag could cover the daily costs of federal nutrition assistance for more than 40 million Americans, as well as daily Medicaid costs for the roughly 16 million people expected to lose health coverage due to the 2025 GOP budget package.
The US Department of Defense has never passed an audit, and as the letter points out, "the Pentagon budget already now totals more than $1 trillion, after the extra $150 billion the agency received in the tax and budget reconciliation bill."
New: We joined 250+ national organizations urging Congress to reject any more funding for President Trump's reckless and illegal war on Iran. Congress must listen to the American people and invest our tax
s towards the urgent needs of our communities, not more disastrous war.
[image or embed]
— FCNL (@fcnl.bsky.social) March 12, 2026 at 4:00 PM
"The $50 billion that the administration reportedly seeks for a new Pentagon supplemental," the letter says, "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
"The choice before Congress is whether it will choose to prevent this unconstitutional war from dragging out and potentially escalating or enabling dangerous and deadly protracted conflict," the coalition concluded. "We urge you to refuse funding for this illegal war that Congress never authorized and a majority of the American people oppose."
According to Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War, "It's outrageous that Trump is even asking for more money to spend on bombs when his spiraling war is killing civilians abroad and driving up prices for everyone at home, all with no end in sight."
"Congress," Lewis said, "should tell Trump clearly: not one more penny for this foolish, destructive war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
War-Making Belongs to Congress―and the Oil Belongs to the People of Venezuela
The question is not whether a particular president’s motives are sincere, nor whether a foreign government is flawed. The question is whether the United States will remain governed by law―or by precedent accumulated through silence.
Jan 09, 2026
The recent Senate debate over U.S. military action in Venezuela exposes a fundamental rupture in American constitutional governance: who has the authority to initiate war. The Constitution answers that question plainly. Yet modern practice―and the arguments advanced in defense of it―have drifted dangerously far from that design. Alongside this constitutional crisis stands a second, inseparable issue: whether the United States may lawfully claim control over the natural resources of another sovereign nation, specifically Venezuela’s oil, under the threat of force.
These questions are not abstract. They determine whether the United States remains governed by law or by precedent accumulated through executive action and congressional silence.
At the center of the debate are two sharply opposed views articulated on the Senate floor. One asserts that the President, as Commander in Chief, may unilaterally use military force whenever he deems it necessary to advance national interests, with Congress relegated to the limited roles of funding restriction or impeachment after the fact. The other insists that the power to initiate war belongs exclusively to Congress, not as a technicality, but as a deliberate constitutional safeguard against impulsive, personalized, or imperial war-making.
Constitutional design and deliberate restraint lie at the heart of the Framers’ intent. Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress―not the President―the power to declare war. Article II assigns the President the authority to command the armed forces once war is authorized and to repel sudden attacks. This division was not accidental. It reflected deep skepticism, shared across the Founding generation, that executives are structurally inclined toward war. James Madison warned that the executive branch is “most prone to it,” driven by secrecy, ambition, and the temptation of unilateral action.
Bombing a foreign capital, removing a sitting head of state, and threatening prolonged military occupation are acts of war by any ordinary, historical, or legal definition. The Constitution does not permit semantic evasions to substitute for authorization.
The Framers, therefore, made war intentionally difficult to launch. They placed the decision in a deliberative body accountable to the people, requiring public debate, recorded votes, and political responsibility. That Congress has too often failed to exercise this duty does not diminish the Constitution’s command. Repeated violations do not convert usurpation into legality. Historical drift explains how power migrated; it does not justify why it should remain there.
Attempts to rebrand large-scale military operations as “law enforcement,” “arrest warrants,” or “limited actions” do not change their substance. Bombing a foreign capital, removing a sitting head of state, and threatening prolonged military occupation are acts of war by any ordinary, historical, or legal definition. The Constitution does not permit semantic evasions to substitute for authorization.
The War Powers Resolution―and the myth of congressional overreach is often invoked as the supposed villain. Critics claim that the 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it allegedly transforms Congress into “535 commanders-in-chief.” This argument inverts constitutional logic. The Resolution does not empower Congress to command troops; it reasserts Congress’s authority to decide whether hostilities initiated by the executive may lawfully continue. It exists precisely because Congress had been sidelined, not because it had seized power.
The statute’s reporting requirements and time limits are accountability mechanisms, not vetoes of military command. Congress’s true failure has not been excessive interference but persistent abdication―avoiding the political responsibility of authorizing war while permitting presidents to act first and justify later. That abdication corrodes checks and balances and transfers the gravest decision a democracy can make into the hands of one person.
Sovereignty, coercion, and Venezuela’s oil bring the constitutional crisis into sharp international focus. The claim that the United States may seize, sell, or administer Venezuelan oil for “mutual benefit” or reconstruction collapses under legal scrutiny. As reaffirmed by the United Nations Secretary-General, Venezuela’s oil belongs to the Venezuelan people. This is not rhetoric; it is a cornerstone principle of international law grounded in state sovereignty and permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
Any alleged “agreement” cited by the Trump administration with a Venezuelan interim authority cannot be credibly described as a genuine agreement at all. Consent extracted under duress is not consent. When a population faces a clear and present threat of escalating military force―further ground operations, hundreds more civilian deaths, and a highly probable invasion―what follows is not agreement but coerced acquiescence. Allowing foreign control of national resources under the shadow of overwhelming military power is not voluntary cooperation; it is survival under threat.
The decision to go to war is not merely strategic. It is moral, constitutional, and irrevocable.
International law does not recognize resource transfers imposed by force or intimidation as legitimate. To do so would resurrect a doctrine of conquest the modern international order was built to reject. If oil may be seized in Venezuela today because military pressure makes resistance impossible, it may be seized anywhere tomorrow by any power willing to invoke its own version of “national interest.”
Such actions erode not only international norms but the United States’ own legal and moral standing. They convert foreign policy from diplomacy into extraction and military power from defense into appropriation.
Democratic accountability and the cost of war demand a return to constitutional first principles. The decision to go to war is not merely strategic. It is moral, constitutional, and irrevocable. It places citizens in harm’s way, reshapes international relations, and unleashes consequences that last generations. That is precisely why the Constitution assigns the initiation of war to Congress.
Congressional authorization does not weaken national security; it strengthens it by conferring legitimacy, public consent, and strategic clarity. History shows that when the United States has truly been attacked, Congress has acted swiftly and decisively. What the Framers sought to prevent was not defense, but adventurism―wars launched without deliberation, accountability, or consent.
Allowing one individual to initiate war, seize foreign leaders, and appropriate another nation’s resources without congressional approval collapses the separation of powers and invites abuse. It replaces law with discretion, deliberation with impulse, and sovereignty with force.
In the end, the question is not whether a particular president’s motives are sincere, nor whether a foreign government is flawed. The question is whether the United States will remain governed by law―or by precedent accumulated through silence. On that question, the Constitution is unambiguous.
War begins with Congress.
And Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuelans.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It Is Long Past Time to Block the Bombs to Israel
The people of Gaza have already waited too long, but now there can be no other course but rapid action to end US complicity in the genocide Israel is conducting with the help of US weapons funded by our tax dollars.
Sep 20, 2025
Many people in the United States are understandably jaded by our current politics. Partisan divisions and corporate special interest domination of the agenda seemingly stymie solutions to our myriad problems, leaving ordinary citizens frustrated at our collective inability to advance sustainable solutions.
And yet, there are times when a situation is so dire, and the answer so clear, that mass common sense spreads like wildfire. This is such a time, with regard to mass public revulsion to Israel’s genocide (with a growing number of Members of Congress calling Israel's actions a genocide, including U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and forced starvation of the Palestinian population ofGaza. By all accounts, Israel could not sustain this humanitarian calamity without U.S. weaponry, and recent U.S. public opinion polls show a decisive turn against Israel’s actions.
It is long past time to block the bombs to Israel.
The Biden Administration’s support for Israel was bad, but predictably, Trump has been worse, accelerating transfers of bombs and guns with monolithic Republican, and far too much Democratic, support, in spite of Israel’s clear violations of U.S. and international law in its mass killing of civilians and denial of life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza.
That situation is changing, as at the end of July, a majority of Democratic and Independent Senators voted to prevent two proposed weapons transfers to Israel. Not a single Republican joined them in this or the previous two rounds of votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on specific weapons transfers to Israel since last November, all introduced by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). More votes of this kind will likely follow, as the Senate allows for expedited, privileged resolutions on certain matters, whereas issues are much more easily bottled up by the majority in the House of Representatives.
However, the House is far from silent on this issue, as a growing number of Democratic and (again, no Republican) Representatives have signed on as cosponsors on HR 3565, the Block the Bombs to Israel bill introduced by US Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL). The bill now has 47 cosponsors, and the number is steadily rising.
Over the August congressional recess, pro-peace organizers around the country raised the call to Ban the Bombs to Israel, including by protesting at congressional town hall meetings. Perhaps the most notable was that of Missouri freshman US Rep. Wesley Bell, who ousted progressive incumbent Cori Bush, who had introduced a bill advocating a ceasefire, with Bell receiving over $12 million in campaign cash from the pro-genocide organization AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee). Security at the event forcibly removed peaceful, nonviolent protesters.
The bill is as close as we have to a de facto arms embargo on Israel, as it would ban transfers of seven specific offensive weapons systems, from bunker busting bombs to tank ammunition to white phosphorus artillery munitions. While House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican majority will probably not allow the bill to advance, even to consideration by a House committee, building support to Ban the Bombs to Israel can help put pressure on President Trump (who recently blurted out that Israel had lost its "total control" of Congress) to exert leverage on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to end his inhumane slaughter in Gaza.
In addition to further votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on specific weapons transfers to Israel, the Senate could also move privileged measures including a War Powers Resolution to prevent further support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, or an inquiry under section 502(B) of the Foreign Assistance Act for Israel’s clear violations of U.S. law. Or, the Senate could attach language such as that in the House Block the Bombs bill as an amendment to an Appropriations Bill.
None of those actions would be an easy lift, and would not be likely to pass (or override an expected presidential veto) but the reality now is the political tide has turned decisively against Israel.
Perhaps the simplest way to look at this is that advocates for peace and human rights have done their job, and the public has responded, as only 8% of Democrats approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, with the overall number at only 32%, according to a recent Gallup poll.
So now it’s time for Congress to represent the will of the people, and do its job. It is far past time to help end the nightmare in Gaza by blocking the bombs to Israel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular