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
elissa slotkin
AIPAC: Defending the Indefensible
A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence.
Jun 02, 2026
As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee confronts a changing political landscape, one in which support for Israel has become a liability, powerful voices are coming to the defense of AIPAC and its hold on American democracy.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is one such voice. He addressed the issue in an interview with Politico. Questioned whether the pro-Israel lobby had become a dividing line in the Democratic Party, Shapiro lamented what he described as the "weaponization" of criticism directed at AIPAC, saying it was being "used cynically by some to try and silence certain voices." Pressed on whether he meant critics were erasing the distinction between opposition to AIPAC and opposition to Jewish donors, he said yes. Shapiro is recasting the lobby's scorched-earth tactics against politicians who do not toe the line on Israel as an attack on Jews and their right to political participation. That framing makes criticism of AIPAC appear suspect before the substance of the criticism is addressed.
He is not alone. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), confronted at a town hall over $4.5 million she had taken from "pro-Israel lobbies," objected that the figure lumped ordinary Jewish donors in with the lobby. This was problematic, she said, "Not just as an elected official," but "as a Jew." In The Washington Post, the columnist Matthew Schmitz gathered statements like these into a thesis: that criticism of Israel has curdled into hostility toward Jews themselves, and that the Democratic Party is turning on a community that has been part of its coalition for a century.
Although a problematic charge, it is deserving of a serious answer. The charge conflates criticizing a political lobby with attacking the Jewish people. This conflation is convenient for the defenders of AIPAC. To see why, start with what AIPAC does.
The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
AIPAC does not have to single-handedly decide an election to shape its outcome. Its power lies in changing the conditions under which the election is fought. The organization describes itself as working to "help elect Democrats and Republicans" who support the US-Israel relationship and to "defeat detractors" of that relationship. Its formal PAC gives directly to candidates, while its affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, can raise and spend unlimited sums through independent expenditures. In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC and United Democracy Project spent $95.1 million, more than double their 2022 spending. United Democracy Project spent almost $9.9 million to defeat Jamaal Bowman and nearly $4.8 million to install George Latimer in his place, a level of outside money The New York Times called unprecedented for a single House race. It spent more than $5.2 million against Cori Bush and another $3.3 million for Wesley Bell, who beat her.
By 2026 the same machinery had crossed party lines, and this time it left no doubt about what it was for. In May, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, a seven-term incumbent, lost his primary after pro-Israel groups spent roughly $9 million to defeat him, part of more than $32 million that made it the most expensive House primary in American history, surpassing the record set against Bowman two years before. AIPAC did not hide its hand. It congratulated the winner for "defeating anti-Israel incumbent Thomas Massie" and declared that "being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics." An organization whose stated mission is to silence dissent over Israel policy took a victory lap after defeating a dissenter. This is not representation but political enforcement.
That is the record the conflation obscures, because it points to a distinction Shapiro and Slotkin would rather we not draw. There is a difference between a lobby that advances an industry or community's interests and a lobby whose signature work is to destroy the people who dissent from it. The first is ordinary democracy; every group does it, and every group should be free to. The second is something else. A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence. AIPAC is the second kind, and no amount of talk about Jewish participation changes what its money does.
Here Slotkin's objection deserves a fair hearing, and then a harder look. She is right about one thing, and it matters: The $4.5 million figure she was confronted with came from a group that counts individual Jewish donors as lobby money. That is a crude metric, and her instinct to reject it is correct. Treating every Jewish donor as AIPAC is exactly the conflation worth refusing. However, she used the softness of that one number to wave away the entire subject, and the subject does not depend on that number. United Democracy Project's independent expenditures are not estimates pulled from a donor tally. They are filed with the Federal Election Commission. Nearly $10 million to defeat a single congressman is not a Jewish donor being smeared. It is a documented political operation, and in a democracy, it is fair game.
Slotkin then offered her own analogy, and it is more revealing than she intended. Plenty of groups do the same thing, she said—"a Pakistani-American group, or whatever group." Exactly so. And if a Pakistani-American group spent $95 million in a single cycle to end the careers of politicians who crossed it, that spending would be criticized too, loudly and by name—and no one would call the criticism anti-Pakistani bigotry. That is the tell. The objection to AIPAC was never that Jews organize, donate, or advocate; Americans of every background do, and should. The objection is to what this particular organization spends its money to accomplish. AIPAC is not being challenged because it is Jewish. It is being challenged because it uses organized money to enforce a narrow pro-Israel line in American politics. Strip away the identity framing and you are left with a plain question about political power—which is the question its defenders are working so hard to avoid.
The conflation cuts both ways, and the second cut is the dangerous one. Slotkin is right that lumping every Jewish donor into "the pro-Israel lobby" is crude and potentially ugly; Jewish donors are not AIPAC by definition. But the reverse move is just as serious, and it is the one AIPAC defenders rely on: treating any criticism of AIPAC's political spending as though it were an attack on Jewish identity itself. The first error mistakes ordinary Jews for the lobby. The second dresses the lobby up as ordinary Jews. That second move gives AIPAC an exemption no other lobby receives—it lets a bare-knuckle political operation spend like a political operation and then, the moment it is criticized, takes cover as a vulnerable civic organization.
The pro-AIPAC defense generally leans on ugly examples—candidates who have made reckless comments, activists who slide from criticism of Israel into something darker, a political culture where antisemitism plainly exists. None of that should be denied, and a thesis about an entire party should not be built on a handful of fringe figures either. But none of it answers the central question. The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
Bigotry is real. So is political power. A serious argument must be able to recognize both at once. AIPAC is not merely participating in democracy; it is using concentrated money to discipline the boundaries of acceptable speech on Israel, while its defenders try to collapse that political critique into ethnic or religious hostility.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Among Lawmakers Saying US Troops 'Must Disobey' Trump Order to Destroy Iranian Civilization
"We can still stop this," said one think tank.
Apr 07, 2026
As US lawmakers and the international community registered President Donald Trump's threat to commit genocide in Iran on Tuesday, rights advocates demanded action from Trump's Cabinet, congressional leaders, and the country's European allies to take action—while US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a reminder that the president can be stopped by a lack of action as well, if those in the US military chain of command refuse to carry out his orders.
Trump's threat to wipe out Iran's civilization of 93 million people "merits removal from office," said Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "To every individual in the president’s chain of command: You have a duty to refuse illegal orders. That includes carrying out this threat."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also addressed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman, Dan Caine, has been joining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in briefings recently as Hegseth has made bellicose threats against Iran and portrayed the unprovoked US-Israeli assault as a holy war.
Lieu reminded the top military leaders that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and federal law prohibit war crimes.
"Obviously eradicating a whole civilization constitutes a war crime. You must disobey that order," said the congressman. "If you commit war crimes, the next administration will prosecute you."
Erik Sperling, executive director of think tank Just Foreign Policy, called on Senate and House Democrats, including those on committees that oversee the armed services and foreign relations, to make Lieu's threat "absolutely clear."
"We can still stop this," said Just Foreign Policy on social media.
Journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that federal laws prohibiting war crimes "will apply in January 2029," after Trump is out of office.
Since Trump took office for his second term in January 2025, Democratic lawmakers have previously issued reminders to the US military that the UCMJ prohibits service members from carrying out illegal orders, with six House members and senators releasing a video in November—as the Pentagon was continuing its bombings of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean and threatening to attack Venezuela—to remind them, "You must refuse illegal orders."
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the lawmakers who participated in the video. On Tuesday the former CIA analyst addressed service members across the military once again, warning that "targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Pentagon's Law of War Manual."
"If [service members] are today or have been asked to do things that violate the law and their training, it puts them in very real legal jeopardy. I know that our service members up and down the chain of command know their duty and the law to refuse illegal orders," said Slotkin. "It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops—especially those in command—will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Slotkin Says She’s Under Federal Investigation After ‘Don’t Follow Unlawful Orders’ Video
"DOJ policy forbids investigations based solely on First Amendment protected activity," said one legal expert.
Jan 14, 2026
The Democratic senator who organized a video warning members of the military against obeying illegal orders given by President Donald Trump said that she is being investigated by federal prosecutors.
In an interview with the New York Times published Tuesday, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that the office of Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, had sent an email to the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms requesting to speak with either Slotkin or her private counsel.
Slotkin called the investigation being conducted by Pirro's office an attempt at intimidating her from speaking out against the Trump administration.
"Facts matter little, but the threat matters quite a bit," said Slotkin, a former CIA intelligence analyst and official at the US Department of Defense. "The threat of legal action; the threat to your family; the threat to your staff; the threat to you."
The Times report noted that it's unclear what potential crime Slotkin is being investigated for, and a spokesperson for Pirro's office declined to confirm the existence of the probe.
However, Slotkin has been under fire from Trump and his allies for several weeks after she organized a video with fellow Democratic lawmakers in which they reminded US military service members that they should not obey any illegal orders given by the president.
"We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community," Slotkin wrote in a November social media post promoting the Democrats' video. "The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution. Don’t give up the ship."
Trump reacted to the video with rage, accusing Slotkin and other Democrats who appeared in the video of engaging in "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
In a social media post Thursday, Michigan Law School professor Barb McQuade argued that any investigation into Slotkin centering on the video about unlawful orders would be flatly unlawful.
"DOJ policy forbids investigations based solely on First Amendment protected activity," McQuade explained.
Slotkin is not the only Trump nemesis facing legal pressure, as it was revealed on Sunday that Pirro's office has also opened a criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who has been frequently targeted by Trump for his refusal to obey the president's demands to more aggressively cut US interest rates.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Trump last week berated dozens of US attorneys, including Pirro, and accused them of being "weak" and too slow in launching criminal probes of his political enemies.
"Among his grievances with prosecutors, Trump complained that the Justice Department hadn’t yet brought a case against one of his most prominent Democratic adversaries, Sen. Adam Schiff of California," the Journal reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defiant Democrats Slam Trump 'Intimidation' After FBI Seeks Interviews Over 'Illegal Orders' Video
"We will not be bullied."
Nov 25, 2025
Democratic lawmakers who participated in a video warning US military personnel against following unlawful orders issued by President Donald Trump remained defiant after being contacted by the FBI.
As reported by Reuters on Tuesday, the FBI has requested interviews with Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Md.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.), just days after Trump demanded their imprisonment or even death for supposed "sedition."
One US Department of Justice official told Reuters that the FBI interviews are to determine if the Democratic lawmakers engaged in "any wrongdoing" when they spoke out against the president potentially giving unlawful orders that pit the US military against American civilians.
The Democrats, however, vowed that they would not be intimidated by any FBI investigation.
In a social media post, Slotkin said that Trump's push to jail the Democrats for exercising their First Amendment rights demonstrated the reason why they decided to participate in the video in the first place. Slotkin accused Trump of "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies," while adding that he "does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet."
"This is not the America I know," added Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. "I'm not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution."
Houlahan, Crow, Goodlander, and Deluzio issued a joint statement accusing Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress," and vowed that "no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution."
"We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," they emphasized. "That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
The FBI interview requests came just a day after the US Department of Defense (DOD) said it had "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired US Navy captain, and was launching an investigation that could result in him being recalled to active duty to face court-martial hearings for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In a separate social media post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked all the Democrats who participated in the video as the "seditious six" and said that Kelly had been singled out for DOD investigation because he was the only member who was still subject to UCMJ given his status as a retired naval officer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump, Who Incited Jan 6 Insurrection, Wants Sedition Charges for Lawmakers Reminding Troops of Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
"If you're threatening Dems for reminding the military that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, you're admitting your orders are illegal."
Nov 20, 2025
Nearly five years after inciting an attempted insurrection, President Donald Trump on Thursday called for sedition charges against Democrats in Congress who reminded members of the US military and intelligence services that "you must refuse illegal orders."
"We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now," says Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst, in the 90-second video circulated on social media Tuesday.
Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), a former Navy captain, notes in the video that "like us, you all swore an oath" to the US Constitution
Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—all veterans of the US military and intelligence community—join the senators in calling on service members to stand up to any illegal orders from the Trump administration and "don't give up the ship."
Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security who anonymously spoke out against Trump in a high-profile op-ed and book during his first term, said that it is "pretty insane that we are living in a moment where a video message like this [is] necessary."
Also responding to the video on the platform X, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, claimed that "Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection."
Kelly hit back, citing the January 6, 2021 attack: "I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol. I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don't."
Slotkin also responded, saying: "This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers, to ensure our military upholds its oath to the Constitution—not a king. Given you're directing much of a military policy, you should buff up on the Uniformed Code of Military Justice."
Trump weighed in on his Truth Social platform just after 9:00 am on Thursday morning, writing: "It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand—We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET."
"This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???," Trump continued, linking to the right-wing Washington Examiner's coverage and signing both posts "President DJT."
Just over an hour later, the president added, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
Responding with a lengthy joint statement, the lawmakers behind the video reiterated their commitment to the oaths they took, and said that "what's most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law."
"Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders," they added. "Every American must unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has for years faced threats from Trump supporters, including Arizona state Rep. John Gillette (R-30) in September—stressed that the president's "calls for political violence are completely unacceptable."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), another frequent target of right-wing threats, similarly took aim at Trump's sedition remarks, saying, "None of this is normal."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber's floor Thursday: "Let's be crystal clear: The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it's deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state."
"We all remember what January 6th was like. We lived through January 6th. We have lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations this year. We have members whose families have had to flee their homes," he continued. "When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline. Every senator, every representative, every American—regardless of party—should condemn this immediately and without qualification."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Thursday: "Trump tried to overthrow our government almost five years ago, and is calling for Dems to be put to death for sedition. If you're threatening Dems for reminding the military that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, you're admitting your orders are illegal."
The Democrats' video and Trump's outburst come as members of Congress and legal experts lambast the Trump administration's deadly bombings of boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean. Critics have emphasized that even if the targeted vessels are transporting illicit substances, the strikes are illegal.
Trump is also under fire for his attacks on immigrants in Democrat-led communities. Kelly and Slotkin, along with Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.), recently introduced the No Troops in Our Streets Act, which would limit the administration's ability to deploy the National Guard and inject $1 billion in new resources to fight crime across the country.
"Our brave military men and women signed up to defend the Constitution and our rights, not to be used as political props or silence dissent," said Duckworth, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has been especially critical of the administration's operation in the Chicagoland area, including efforts to deploy the National Guard there.
"These un-American, unjustified deployments of troops into our cities do nothing to fight crime—they only serve to intimidate Americans in their own neighborhoods," she added. "I'm introducing this legislation with my colleagues to stop Trump's gross misuse of our military and devote more resources toward efforts that would actually help our local law enforcement—which Trump has actually defunded to the tune of $800 million."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Advances Bill Banning Politicians From Stock Trading—While Giving Trump a Big Carveout
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
Jul 30, 2025
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders: 'Oligarchy on Steroids' Poses Existential Threat to Democracy
"If we don't address that issue, the American people will continue to turn their backs on democracy."
Apr 27, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that Democrats lack a "vision for the future," warning that Americans will "turn their backs on democracy" if elected officials fail to tackle an "oligarchy on steroids."
Appearing on NBC News' "Meet the Press," Sanders (I-Vt.) was asked about Sen. Elissa Slotkin's (D-Mich.) recent assertion that Democrats should stop saying "oligarchy" because it only resonates with coastal institutions, and whether he's "missing a chance to speak to a wider audience."
"Well... we had 36,000 people out in Los Angeles, 34,000 people in Colorado, we had 30,000 people in Folsom, California," Sanders replied, referring to the wildly popular Fighting Oligarchy Tour he's currently on with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
"I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are. I think they understand very well," the senator continued. "When the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, when big money interests are able to control both political parties, they are living in an oligarchy."
"And these are precisely the issues that have got to be talked about," Sanders said. "Are you living in a democracy when [Elon] Musk can spend $270 million to elect [President Donald] Trump, and then becomes the most important person in government?"
Sanders called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other super PACs "that have enormous power over Democratic candidates."
"Those are issues that we have got to talk about. That is the reality of American society today. The very rich getting richer, working-class people are struggling, 800,000 people [are] sleeping out on the streets," the democratic socialist contended.
"If we don't address that issue, the American people will continue to turn their backs on democracy, because they're looking around them and they're saying, 'Does anybody understand what I am going through?'" he added. "And unfortunately right now, to a large degree, neither party does."
Sanders urged Democrats to embrace policies like fixing the nation's "broken healthcare system" and raising the minimum wage, pointing to issues on which he is working with colleagues.
"You have Democrats... talking about Trump's movement toward authoritarianism; vigorously opposing the so-called reconciliation bill to give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks for the 1% and make massive cuts to Medicaid, nutrition, and housing; opposing what Musk is doing to dismember the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration, making it hard for our veterans to get decent health care or benefits on time," he said.
Sanders argued that the country needs more working-class people to run for office—and not necessarily as Democrats.
"You want to run as a Democrat? Great," he said. "You want to run as an Independent? That's great, but you've got to get involved in the political process, because right now the two-party system is failing the working class of this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Slotkin Panned Online After Claiming That Voters Don't Know What 'Oligarchy' Means
"It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is," said one progressive strategist. "They're living it."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' tour headlined with this word has drawn more than 107,000 Americans in blue and deep-red states alike. Former President Joe Biden's use of it in his farewell speech prompted a spike in Google searches. And one recent poll found that a majority of U.S. voters, including 54% of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Independents, know exactly what it means.
Yet Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the Democratic politicians insisting this week that no one does.
The word is "oligarchy"—a government ruled by a small group of elites—and as experts have warned for years, the U.S. increasingly resembles one. As Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have told huge crowds in places like Nampa, Idaho and Greeley, Colorado in recent weeks, President Donald Trump's alliance with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk has made the country's shift even more obvious.
But even as evidence mounts that Americans understand that the political system has been captured by corporations and the wealthiest people—and are living their day-to-day lives with the results, including higher healthcare costs and disinvestment in public services—Slotkin told Politico on Thursday that Democrats should "stop using the term 'oligarchy,' a phrase she said doesn't resonate beyond coastal institutions."
On Bluesky, The Nation writer John Nichols said that the tens of thousands people who have packed stadiums and parks in recent weeks to hear Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez speak would disagree with Slotkin.
Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin says Democrats should stop using the term "oligarchy" because, she says, no one knows what it means. These people say she’s wrong.
[image or embed]
— John Nichols (@nicholsuprising.bsky.social) April 24, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Slotkin's advice for Democrats, which she dubbed her "war plan" and gave ahead of several speeches she has planned, also included a call for the party to stop being "weak and woke," phrases she said she heard in Michigan focus groups.
Her comments echoed those of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Democratic operative who told California Gov. Gavin Newsom on his podcast last week that using terms like "oligarchs" and "special interests" makes Democrats "worse marketers"; Newsom appeared to agree that people don't "understand" what an oligarchy is.
Emanuel also appeared on the political and pop culture podcast "I've Had It," hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan, and seemed caught of guard when Welch took him to task for his suggestion that Democrats should end their advocacy for issues that affect transgender Americans.
"That is total bullshit, that is buying into the right-wing media narrative, and I'm so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this," said Welch. "You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA... We've got to fucking fight. They're the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We're the ones who fight for Social Security, we fight for Medicare, and yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people."
Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel said Emanuel's derision of the word "oligarchy" is a clear "shot at Sanders/AOC, who keep saying it."
At one stop on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour recently, Sanders told a crowd that the enthusiasm for his and Ocasio-Cortez's message is "scaring the hell out of" Trump and Musk.
But shortly after Slotkin's comments, Ocasio-Cortez remarked—without naming the senator—that "plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle feel threatened by rising class consciousness."
Angelo Greco, a progressive strategist who works with grassroots organizations including Our Revolution and One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams on Friday that establishment Democrats' dismissal of the term oligarchy is "out of touch" and "underestimates" voters.
"Tell me that farmers don't understand what the oligarchy is when there's a consolidation of the agribusiness that impacts them. Tell me that workers in Michigan don't understand what it means when trade deals that are written by multinational corporations have led to lower wages and plant closures," said Greco. "It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is. They're living it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Low-Wage Workers Endorse Slate of Candidates to Win Fairer Economy
One Fair Wage Action is endorsing 25 national and state candidates who are "committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour."
Oct 30, 2024
A U.S. advocacy group fighting for a living wage for its hundreds of thousands of service industry employee members on Wednesday announced its endorsement of a slate of "pro-worker candidates" in next week's elections.
One Fair Wage (OFW) Action—whose members include more than 300,000 U.S. restaurant workers, owners, and other service industry employees—said following its recent endorsement of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that "these candidates—from Arizona to Michigan to New York—are committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour, a poverty-level wage that leaves tipped and service workers struggling in one of the nation's fastest-growing, yet lowest-paid sectors."
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform."
"As families across the nation struggle with rising costs, One Fair Wage Action's coalition of over 300,000 service workers, employers, and allies are mobilizing to amplify the call for living wages," the group continued. "In key battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, the organization will focus on reaching voters who are demanding economic justice and solutions to the cost-of-living crisis."
OFW Action endorsed Democratic candidates including:
- Arizona: Ruben Gallego (U.S. Senate); Junelle Cavero and Oscar De Los Santos (U.S. House); and Mariana Sandoval (state Legislature);
- California: Rose Penelope Yee, Lateefah Simon, Laura Friedman, Rudy Salas, Jimmy Gomez, David Kim, and Stephen Houlahan (U.S. House);
- Illinois: Nikki Budzinski and Lauren Underwood (U.S. House);
- Massachusetts: Leigh Davis and Natalie Higgins (state Legislature);
- Michigan: Elissa Slotkin (U.S. Senate) and Carl Marlinga (U.S. House);
- Nevada: Steven Horsford (U.S. House);
- New York: Adriano Espaillat, John Avlon, Rob Lubin, Grace Meng, Andrea Morse, and John Mannion (U.S. House); and
- Wisconsin: Rebecca Cooke (U.S. House).
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform," OFW Action president Saru Jayaraman said Wednesday "For years, powerful lobbying groups have fought to preserve the subminimum wage for tipped workers at just $2.13 an hour, forcing millions of tipped and service workers, who are overwhelmingly women and people of color, to suffer from the highest rates of economic instability and sexual harassment of any industry."
"These candidates are committed to putting a stop to this practice and ensuring that every worker is paid fairly and with dignity," she asserted. "By electing leaders who prioritize fair wages over corporate profits, we can finally create an economy that values the contributions of all workers—not just those at the top."
Last month, OFW applauded Harris for backing an end to the subminimum wage for tipped workers, arguing the policy stands in stark contrast with the platform of former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, whose scheme to end taxes on tipped employees has been panned by experts as potentially harmful to the workers it purports to help.
"For too long, well-funded interests have blocked progress on fair wages," Jayaraman added. "These candidates bring a commitment to meaningful change from within the system. They understand the urgent need to address the imbalance that keeps so many workers struggling to make ends meet. One Fair Wage Action is mobilizing to ensure that these voices are heard, so that workers themselves drive this change at the polls."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Kyrsten Sinema Redux? Why There’s Nothing Badass About Elissa Slotkin
The figure Slotkin is most reminiscent of is Sinema, a conservative Democrat in the House anointed to run for an open seat in the Senate. We know how that turned out.
Mar 15, 2024
Michigan’s longtime Senator Debbie Stabenow is retiring this year, meaning an open U.S. Senate seat is up for grabs. There is a multitude of candidates running, both Democrats and Republicans, but the odds-on favorite looks like Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who raised $1.2 million within the first day of her candidacy. Slotkin currently serves in the House of Representatives for Michigan’s 7th district, which includes both the state capital, Lansing, and arch-conservative Livingston County. From the outset, it was clear that Slotkin was no liberal, let alone progressive.
Her background was as a CIA analyst during the criminal war in Iraq, not as one of those marching against it. She worked under John Negroponte, a Reagan-era official who covered up Central American war crimes. She was an architect of the failed Iraqi troop surge, although she claimed it was a success against all evidence. During the campaign Newsweek profiled her in the article “Not Your Average Democrat,” which mentioned Slotkin’s opposition to Medicare for All-style single-payer healthcare. After her election, the media attempted to create a phenomenon of “the Badasses” by grouping Slotkin with other freshman Democratic representatives who had served in the military or the CIA. This name prompts the question: What’s so “badass” about Slotkin’s record?
Opposition to war? That can’t be right. Slotkin opposed ending support for Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, even after the autocracy dismembered journalist Jamal Kashoggi. She also voted against withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. Of course she is also a lockstep supporter of Israel as shown by AIPAC’s endorsement of her and her signature on a letter expressing “disgust” at South Africa for bringing a charge of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice.
Given the three letter agency backgrounds of Slotkin and Rogers, November’s showdown could be termed COINTELPRO vs. CHAOS.
Support for LGBTQ rights? It can’t be that either. Slotkin was one of only two Democrats to join Republicans in Congress in voting to ban the Pride flag from military bases. Slotkin claimed that the ban also banned the Confederate flag and that’s why she voted the way she did. But, you can read Sen. Roger Marshall’s (R-Kan.) press release introducing the ban where he says, “It’s a sad state of affairs when the White House prioritizes their radical social agenda over patriotism...The One Flag For All Act ensures that the American flag never gets sidelined for culture wars…” It seems like he properly understood the bill was meant to ban the Pride flag, even if Slotkin did not.
What about criminal justice reform? Eh. In a tough 2022 reelection fight, Slotkin expressed support for the death penalty “in rare cases,” a mostly moot point given that Michigan has never had capital punishment, but the remark showed the congresswoman’s “tough on crime” bonafides. She voted to overturn criminal justice reforms in Washington D.C. plus, in something out of Reefer Madness, bar security clearance to anyone who has used marijuana. This is an incredible vote given that recreational marijuana has been legal in Michigan since 2018.
Well surely any Democrat from Michigan is a staunch supporter of organized labor, right? Think again. When the UAW embarked on its historic “stand up” strike last year, she all but asked workers to accept a substandard contract, saying she hoped the strike would be short lived and, moreover, that the union should not “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Slotkin’s record then, is less “badass” than boringly conventional. In fact, the figure Slotkin is most reminiscent of is Kyrsten Sinema. Like Sinema, she’s another conservative Democrat in the House anointed to run for an open seat in the Senate. Sinema infamously torpedoed bill after bill before leaving the Democratic Party altogether to sit as an Independent.
It’s not looking like there will be much chance to avoid a Slotkin victory. Her three Democratic primary opponents—Hill Harper, Nasser Beydoun, and Zack Burns—are all far behind in fundraising as well as endorsements. The only excitement in the primary so far came when both Harper and Beydoun claimed they were offered what was in effect a $20 million bribe by pro-Israel donors to drop out to run against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Neither took the offer.
On the Republican side, things are even bleaker. The main fight is between ex-Congressmen and ex-FBI agent Mike Rogers and comparative moderate Pete Meijer (of the grocery chain fortune.) Meijer lost his congressional primary to an even more right-wing Republican boosted by cash from the Democrats. If he’s too moderate for GOP voters in Grand Rapids, the same is probably true statewide. Rogers, on the other hand, was the best friend the NSA had on Capitol Hill, even going so far as to offer his help in assassinating NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden with a drone strike. He’s endorsed by Congressman Tim Walberg, who, despite having the look and name of an accountant, is one of the House’s most notorious homophobes. Walberg voted against the Respect for Marriage Act and traveled to Uganda to urge the country to “stand firm” against international pressures due to its laws mandating capital punishment for homosexuality.
Given the three letter agency backgrounds of Slotkin and Rogers, November’s showdown could be termed COINTELPRO vs. CHAOS. Whether the eventual winner is Slotkin, Rogers, or Meijer, it’s clear who the real losers will be: peace activists, civil libertarians, fighters for single-payer healthcare, and anti-death penalty activists. Another loser is our democratic process which puts up such awful choices in the first place.
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