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
Trump 'Took a Hatchet' to Major US Climate Report by Dismissing All Its Authors
"The only beneficiaries of disrupting or killing this report are the fossil fuel industry and those intent on boosting oil and gas profits," said one person who was working on the 6th National Climate Assessment.
Apr 29, 2025
Hundreds of scientists and experts working on the National Climate Assessment were dismissed by the Trump administration via email on Monday, casting doubt on the future of the federal government's flagship climate report, which was slated to come out by 2028.
On Monday, those working on the 6th version of the report received an email from the Trump administration that the scope of the assessment is being "reevaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990"—in reference to the legislation that mandated the creation of the National Climate Assessment.
"We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles," continued the email, the text of which was included in a Monday statement from the group the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Today, the Trump administration senselessly took a hatchet to a crucial and comprehensive U.S. climate science report by dismissing its authors without cause or a plan," said Dr. Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an author for the 6th National Climate Assessment (NCA) on the coasts chapter, said on Monday. "People around the nation rely on the NCA to understand how climate change is impacting their daily lives already and what to expect in the future. While not policy prescriptive, the findings of previous reports underscore the importance of cutting heat-trapping emissions and investing in climate resilience to protect communities and the economy."
"The only beneficiaries of disrupting or killing this report are the fossil fuel industry and those intent on boosting oil and gas profits at the expense of people's health and the nation's economic well-being," added Cleetus.
Since entering office, Trump has signed executive orders aimed at bolstering oil, gas, and coal and installed Cabinet members with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
The assessment, which is required by Congress, has been released every few years since 2000 and gives a rundown of how global warming is impacting different sectors of the economy, ecosystems, and communities. The energy and environment focused outlet E&E News reported Tuesday that the report is "seen by experts as the definitive body of research about how global warming is transforming the country."
The report last came out in 2023. That National Climate Assessment established that the "effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region" of the United States. The report's authors warned that absent deeper cuts in fossil fuel emissions and accelerated adaption efforts compared to what's currently underway, "severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow."
Earlier in April, the Trump administration enacted cuts to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which oversees the production of the National Climate Assessment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defenders of Public Media Vow Fight Against Trump Assault on 'Cherished' NPR and PBS
"NPR and PBS aren't perfect. But they, and more importantly the hundreds of public stations across the country, are vital to a healthy democracy," wrote on journalist.
Apr 15, 2025
A leader of the advocacy group Free Press Action Fund, the 501(c)(4) arm of Free Press, on Monday denounced a plan by the Trump administration to reportedly ask Congress to take back more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States.
The request to yank CPB funding, which would impact the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and their local member stations across the country, will be part of a broader package to rescind already approved funds and is also expected to impact funding for the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, according to Politico, which cited an anonymous White House official.
Congress had already approved $535 million in federal spending for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. If Congress agrees to the White House's request, the decrease in funding will tally about two years worth of CPB funding, nearly all of which goes to public broadcasters such as NPR and PBS, according to The New York Times.
The Trump administration plans to submit a rescission request in the coming weeks, according to the Times, which anonymously quoted two people briefed on the plan. According to Politico, to approve the request, the ask would need to clear the House and the Senate, which are both Republican-controlled, by only a simple majority vote.
Free Press Action co-CEO Jessica J. González, reacted to the news in a statement Monday: "The Trump White House may not like public media—and that's no surprise given the president's frequent attacks on any journalism that holds his administration and its cabal of billionaires accountable. But Trump's views are out of step with those of the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly support federal funding for public media."
According to a Pew Research Center survey from March, Americans are more likely to support rather than oppose continued federal funding for NPR and PBS. Twenty-four percent of U.S. adults say Congress should remove government funding from NPR and PBS, 43% say NPR and PBS should continue receiving federal funding, and 33% say they are unsure.
"President Trump and his loyalists want to take another cherished public service away from the American people," González said. "We will ensure that members of Congress will hear a similar outcry in the coming days and weeks, and encourage people to, in-person, tell their elected representatives and senators to support public broadcasting as they return home to face constituents over spring recess."
According to the Times, PBS gets about 15% of its budget from federal funding. NPR has said only 1% of its funding comes from federal sources, but its individual member stations would be more heavily impacted by a reduction in CPB funding.
PBS and NPR have been in the Trump administration's crosshairs for months. In late January, the Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr launched an investigation into NPR and PBS. In March, leaders from NPR and PBS were summoned to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee's Delivering on Government Efficiency subcommittee. Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who chairs that subcommittee, concluded the hearing by saying that Republicans on the committee will call for the "complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."
On Monday, the Trump White House published an article arguing that taxpayers have been subsidizing NPR and PBS even though the they have been spreading "radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" The release included examples of the alleged propaganda.
Former "Here and Now" co-host Jeremy Hobson reacted with dismay on Monday to the news that Trump wants to yank funding for the CPB.
"As someone who has worked in public broadcasting since I was a kid, and has always tried to be factual and fair, this makes me sad. NPR and PBS aren't perfect. But they, and more importantly the hundreds of public stations across the country, are vital to a healthy democracy," he wrote on X.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing Trump's Push for Ethnic Cleansing, Sanders Says Congress 'Must Act to Block' Arms Sales to Israel
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has clearly violated U.S. and international law in this brutal war, and we must end our complicity in the carnage," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Mar 27, 2025
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced Thursday he plans to force votes in the U.S. Senate next week on two joint resolutions of disapproval aimed at blocking proposed arms sales from the United States to Israel, citing U.S. President Trump's recent proposal for the Gaza Strip that human rights officials have called tantamount to ethnic cleansing, and other actions taken by Israel.
Sanders has put forward two joint resolutions of disapproval (JRDs), one aimed at blocking $6.75 billion in munitions and equipment, and a second one for $2.04 billions worth of munitions and related equipment.
The Independent senator—who last fall introduced JRDs to block the sale of U.S. weapons to Israel that ultimately did not pass—argues that Congress "must act to block" the sales in part due to U.S. President Donald Trump's talk of "forcibly displacing millions of people from Gaza."
At a press conference in early February with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said that the United States would "take over" Gaza and "develop it." Trump said that U.S. developers will "level it out" and build the "Riviera of the Middle East" after Palestinians—"all of them"—leave Palestine's coastal enclave.
Last week, Israel's security cabinet approved a proposal to organize "a voluntary transfer for Gaza residents who express interest in moving to third countries, in accordance with Israeli and international law, and following the vision of U.S. President Donald Trump," according to CNN.
In his statement, Sanders said that "there is a name for such a policy—ethnic cleansing—and it's a war crime."
"Netanyahu has clearly violated U.S. and international law in this brutal war, and we must end our complicity in the carnage," Sanders added.
According to researchers with Brown University's the Costs of War Project, the U.S sent at least $17.9 billion in security assistance to Israel between October 2023 and September 2024.
Sanders said that Israel has used U.S.-supplied weapons to kill "a handful of Hamas fighters, and made little effort to distinguish between civilians and combatants," resulting in unnecessary civilian deaths. "These actions are immoral and illegal," he said.
Last week, local health officials in Gaza announced that the death toll of Israel's deadly campaign on the enclave had surpassed 50,000 people. The grim milestone came after a wave of Israeli strikes that followed a two-month period of relative calm while a shaky cease-fire deal was in effect.
Hamas wanted to open talks for the second phase of the deal, that was supposed to see Israel fully withdraw from the enclave and Hamas release remaining living hostages. Israel instead wanted to impose the terms of a new cease-fire presented by the Trump administration, and refused to hold the talks regarding a permanent end to the war.
The senator also cited Israel's decision to halt humanitarian aid from entering into the Gaza Strip in early March. "Blocking humanitarian aid is morally abhorrent and a clear violation of both the Geneva Convention and the Foreign Assistance Act," according to the statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump and Cabinet Thrash Climate, Coalition Demands Dems Hold the Line Against Big Oil Immunity
"What's at stake here isn't just who pays for climate disasters—it's whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them," said the communications director at Make Polluters Pay.
Mar 13, 2025
Over 190 groups are urging Democrats in Congress resist any attempts by Big Oil to evade potential legal liability amid the growing number of legal and legislative efforts aimed at holding major polluters accountable for their role in the climate crisis.
In a Thursday letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the groups urge Democratic lawmakers "to proactively and affirmatively reject any proposal that would shield fossil fuel companies" from those efforts.
A quarter of U.S. residents live in a state or locality that is "taking ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel companies to court to hold them accountable for this deception and make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused," according to the letter. Maine, for example, became the eighth U.S. state to sue major oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about their products' role in the climate crisis.
The letter signatories include a long list of green groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Extinction Rebellion US, as well as the American Association of Justice and other nonprofits.
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request by a coalition of Republican state attorneys general aimed at preventing oil and gas companies from facing these types of lawsuits. Trump has also vowed to block climate litigation aimed at Big Oil.
In their letter, the groups also point to a number of efforts, some successful, to pass what are known as "superfund laws," which force privately owned polluters to help cover the costs of protecting public infrastructure from climate-fueled threats. Oil and gas companies have lobbied against the passage of these laws.
"What's at stake here isn't just who pays for climate disasters—it's whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them," said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director of Make Polluters Pay—one of the letter's signatories—in a Thursday statement.
"Lawmakers must decisively reject any attempt by the fossil fuel industry to evade accountability and ensure both justice today and the right of future generations to hold polluters responsible for decades of deception," DiPaola continued.
The letter references episodes when "fossil fuel companies and their allies" tried to "secure a blanket waiver of liability for their industry."
In 2017, a carbon tax plan spearheaded by a group of Republican statesmen and economists proposed stopping potential lawsuits against oil companies and other corporations that release greenhouse gases, and in 2020, the fossil fuel industry tried to quietly include a liability waiver for itself in a government Covid-19 relief package, according to the outlet Drilled.
The letter also highlights that 60 Democratic House members urged leadership to categorically oppose efforts to "immunize polluters" in response to the latter effort.
"We have reason to believe that the fossil fuel industry and its allies will use the chaos and overreach of the new Trump administration to attempt yet again to pass some form of liability waiver and shield themselves from facing consequences for their decades of pollution and deception," the letter states. "That effort—no matter what form it takes—must not be allowed to succeed."
The demand from these groups comes amid broader attacks on climate and environmental protections from the Trump administration
On Wednesday, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a series of actions to roll back environmental regulation impacting issues ranging from rules on pollution from power plants to regulations for vehicles.
On his first day in office, Trump signed executive orders withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and initiated plans to open up Alaskan wilderness to drilling and mining.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing Short of Fiscal Sabotage': GOP Spending Bill Would Blow $1 Billion Hole in DC Budget
One D.C.-based observer accused the GOP of "attempting to casually cut the budget of a major city simply because they hate us and they can."
Mar 12, 2025
The government spending bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Tuesday that aims to avert a government shutdown would effectively cut Washington, D.C.'s budget by almost $1.1 billion dollars, a move that city leaders warned would be devastating for city services, schools, and more.
"The proposed one billion [dollar] cut to D.C.'s budget is senseless, reckless, and would have devastating consequences for our nation’s capital," a spokeswoman for Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said in a statement that was sent to multiple outlets.
The dilemma stems from the fact that Congress has the final word over D.C.'s budget.
The Republican spending bill is a continuing resolution and largely freezes federal spending at levels approved in the prior fiscal year, with $13 billion in cuts to non-military spending. Generally, Congress includes language in the continuing resolution that allows D.C. to spend its locally generated revenue at spending levels it has separately approved, but did not include that provision this time. In 2024, D.C. passed a 2025 budget of $21 billion, funded largely with local tax revenues.
" Republicans opted instead to treat D.C. the same as a federal agency, freezing funds and thus forcing the city to revert to its fiscal year 2024 budget—even as the city has been operating under its larger fiscal year 2025 budget since last October," explained the local D.C. outlet The 51st.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) released a statement Monday blasting the text of the bill.
"With this bill, House Republicans have intentionally committed nothing short of fiscal sabotage against D.C.," said Norton. "D.C. has not been treated as a federal agency for funding purposes in more than 20 years precisely because doing so can force dramatic overnight cuts to essential services, including police, sanitation, and schools. Cuts to these services would work against Republicans' stated goal of improving public safety and order in D.C."
A memo from D.C. officials explains that reducing local spending by over $1 billion would force a 16% cut to all remaining funds that are not expended. A cut that large would result in layoffs of direct services workers and a reduction or elimination of direct services, per the memo.
The Washington Post reported that it's hard to predict exactly how the cuts will play out, but budget officials believe the reduction could cause $200 million in cuts to D.C. Public Schools and $166 million in cuts to charter schools.
D.C. Water, which distributes drinking water and provides regional wastewater treatment services, could see $51 million in cuts.
"The federal government saves no money from reducing D.C.'s locally funded expenditures," according to the memo from the District, which also noted that the cuts could cause D.C.'s bond rating to be downgraded.
"This is all completely pointless," wrote one observer on X. "There should not be a single vote in Congress in favor of these catastrophic cuts."
Another D.C. resident shared the Post's story and wrote the GOP is "attempting to casually cut the budget of a major city simply because they hate us and they can."
The spending bill now heads to the Senate. Democrats can try to block the measure, though that carries the risk of being blamed for a government shutdown, which would go into effect if no spending bill is passed by Friday.
"Big vote upcoming for Senate Democrats," wrote Post reporter Jeff Stein on Wednesday. "The Trump administration is asserting massive new powers to control federal spending unilaterally, and many Dems view the shutdown bill as their only possible point of leverage. We'll see what they do soon."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Petition Urging Impeachment of 'Corrupt, Lawless' Trump Surges Past 250,000 Signatures
"As Trump repeatedly undermines our democracy and ignores the Constitution, we will continue to call on Congress to fulfill its duty by investigating and, if necessary, removing this corrupt executive from office," said one legal advocate.
Mar 07, 2025
The nonprofit Free Speech for People, which is leading a nonpartisan campaign to drum up support for an impeachment investigation into U.S. President Donald Trump's conduct, announced Friday that it has gathered more than 250,000 petition signatures.
The campaign, called "Impeach Trump. Again.," was launched its petition on Inauguration Day. Free Speech for People also launched a campaign to build public support for Trump's impeachment on the day of his inauguration back in 2017.
Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first term, but in both cases he was acquitted by the Senate. Both chambers of Congress are now controlled by Trump's Republican Party.
"The Constitution has a remedy for a corrupt, lawless president: impeachment," said John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech For People, in a statement Friday announcing the petition signatures.
Last month, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) announced on the floor of the House of Representatives that he intends to bring articles of impeachment against Trump and Trump suggested that the United States take over the Gaza Strip—a proposal that Free Speech for People includes on its list of the president’s alleged "abuses of power."
"The movement to impeach the president has begun," Green said at the time, according to The Hill. "I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done."
Leadership with Free Speech for People praised Green's pledge to file articles of impeachment.
"We applaud Congressman Al Green for demanding that the U.S. Congress hold Donald Trump accountable through the impeachment process for his dangerous abuses of power," said Courtney Hostetler, Free Speech for People's legal director.
"As Trump repeatedly undermines our democracy and ignores the Constitution, we will continue to call on Congress to fulfill its duty by investigating and, if necessary, removing this corrupt executive from office," Hostetler continued.
Green recently made headlines for disrupting the Trump's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, telling the president he had "no mandate to cut Medicaid," a move he was later censured for by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Free Speech for People wants Congress to launch an impeachment investigation into Trump for "abusing his power to seek retribution against perceived adversaries" and "unconstitutionally usurping Congress's powers," among other alleged offenses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
He 'Understood the Assignment': Support for Al Green Pours In After Disruption of Trump Speech
"Al Green stood up. Would like to see more people stand up," wrote Ezra Levin, the co-founder of the progressive group Indivisible.
Mar 05, 2025
Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas is earning praise online after delivering perhaps the most dramatic moment of U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.
Green interrupted the speech, shaking his cane at Trump and shouting that the president had "no mandate to cut Medicaid." He was led out of the chamber by the sergeant-at-arms after being told to sit down by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), as Republicans cheered. Speaking to reporters after he was escorted out, Green said that he was protesting Trump's efforts to cut federal government programs, including Medicaid, according to The Hill.
"Al Green understood the assignment," wrote Sam Weinberg, the executive director of the progressive group Path to Progress, on Bluesky on Tuesday. Ezra Levin, the co-founder of the grassroots group Indivisible, similarly said: "Al Green stood up. Would like to see more people stand up."
"EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS!!! RESPECT TO AL GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posted the leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, on X.
Former Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wrote "Al Green!" and added that all the Democrats in the room should have left with him.
The New York Times reported that Green's act was a show of protest not only against Trump, but also congressional Democratic Party leaders who had asked Democrats to attend the speech but not disrupt it.
During the address, other Democrats sat through the speech and raised signs with messages such as "Save Medicaid" and "Musk Steals." According to Reuters, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and others turned their backs as Trump spoke, revealing messages on the backs of their shirts like "No Kings live here," before exiting.
While threats to Medicaid were the central focus of Green's protests, Republicans' targeting of the program did not feature in Trump's speech—during which he boasted about gutting climate initiatives, ending the "tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies," and peddled the falsehood that Social Security benefits are being paid out out on a large scale to people who have been dead for years.
Last week, House Republicans were able to pass a budget resolution that tees up passing trillions of dollars in tax cuts, a move that will almost certainly be paid for by slashing social programs like Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The resolution instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than" $880 billion over the next decade. That panel has jurisdiction over Medicaid, which the GOP has repeatedly targeted in public and private discussions, with one leaked document floating over $2 trillion in cuts to the program.
Republicans also rejected numerous Democratic amendments that would have prevented Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts in the upcoming budget reconciliation process as their resolution moved through committees.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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