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
gregory meeks
'Huge Win for the Constitution' as House Finally Passes Iran War Powers Resolution
"Now it’s time for the Senate to act," said CodePink's Medea Benjamin. "Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
Jun 03, 2026
Raucous applause erupted in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after US lawmakers passed a war powers resolution aimed at ending Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran—although skeptics cautioned that the measure will likely have little impact on the actions of a president who has habitually shown utter contempt for the rule of law.
House lawmakers voted 215-208, with 7 legislators not voting, in favor of H.Con.Res.86, introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and cosponsored by Reps. James Himes (D-Conn.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
Every Democrat present voted for the resolution, while three Republicans—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—broke ranks with their GOP colleagues and joined Massie in voting to approve the measure, which directs Trump to "remove United States armed forces from hostilities with Iran."
“We are trapped in a war that won’t end because an incompetent president launched it thinking of only his own ego while failing to prepare for the consequences,” Meeks, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during floor debate ahead of Wednesday's vote. “Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more bluster.”
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limiting such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
It's been 95 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, which followed last summer's separate bombing campaigns by both allies. Since then, more than 3,400 Iranians—many of them civilians—have been killed and over 26,000 others wounded by airstrikes, while Iranian counterattacks have killed 13 US troops, 26 Israelis, and over 20 people in Gulf Arab states aligned with the US.
House lawmakers had tried and failed to pass Iran war powers resolutions on three previous occasions. Last month, after four US Senate Republicans helped Democrats advance one of the resolutions, GOP leadership in the House canceled two subsequent votes on the measure.
“Since President Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran began, I have been extremely clear over and over again that Congress alone has the power to declare war," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who did not vote Wednesday because she was in India due to a family health emergency—said in a statement. "This war has had disastrous effects for the American people and for the world in the nearly 100 days since Trump began it without congressional approval."
Jayapal continued:
"Waged with absolutely no imminent threat and no endgame, this war has already killed 13 US service members and injured many more; killed thousands of civilians in Iran and Lebanon, and displaced millions more; wasted billions in US taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on lowering healthcare and housing costs for Americans; and all while causing gas prices and grocery costs to skyrocket.
"The simple truth is that the American people are paying the price for Trump’s lawlessness," Jayapal added. “Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asserted that "our victory—while monumental—does not change the truth that this war never should have began, and never would have began, had the president not disgraced America and our laws to ensure that it did."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on social media: "The American people are tired of presidents abusing their power by spending billions of our taxpayer dollars on unnecessary wars. I urge the Senate to quickly pass this bill to end Trump’s illegal war in Iran."
Civil society groups opposed to the war applauded Wednesday's vote, which Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, called a "total rebuke of Trump."
"After 95 days of illegal war, Congress is finally enacting the will of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose President Trump’s disastrous war on Iran," Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement.
"While congressional action is welcome, it is woefully late. Congress should not have taken over three months to pass a resolution that would force Trump to end this war," he continued. "Their delay has left millions of people struggling amidst unnecessary, unacceptable human and economic consequences."
"Lawmakers who've placed their loyalty to Trump over acting to determine when and whether the United States goes to war have failed both their constituents and their constitutional duty," Eikenberry added.
Naveed Shah, political director of the veterans' group Common Defense, said following the vote, "Veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans, which is why we commend the Republicans who joined Democrats on this vote and showed the kind of courage and independence this moment demands."
"This was an important step toward ending a dangerous war and ensuring that the American people have a voice through their elected representatives," Shah added. "It is long past time to put guardrails on this brazen president, who launched us into an illegal war with Iran."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the role of money in politics, said in a statement that “today’s vote is a huge win for the Constitution and for the American people."
"The House finally had the political willpower to stand up to the president’s unconstitutional war," Fraser added. "Americans should celebrate this massive victory, but have every right to feel frustrated that it took this long for Congress to work on behalf of the people. That must change. Our democracy will not survive if Congress fails to uphold its responsibility to check executive power at this critical juncture."
“Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution.”
Some observers noted that Wednesday's vote is likely to be largely symbolic, pointing to Trump's veto—and the Senate's failure to overturn it—of a 2019 bipartisan war powers resolution directing him to end US military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
Still, lawmakers and advocates urged the Senate to pass the Iran resolution to uphold the rule of law and force Trump's hand.
"Ending this war is a moral imperative," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) implored upper chamber lawmakers to "immediately follow suit and act to end this war."
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) posted on Bluesky: "Now it’s time to pass the Senate. The power to declare war has been with Congress. Now let’s get it done and end this war!"
Benjamin said: "Now it’s time for the Senate to act. Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No War With Cuba': As Pentagon Mobilizes US Forces, Dems Move to Block Illegal Trump Attack
“This administration is rushing toward another disastrous war, putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez. "Congress must reassert its constitutional authority."
May 28, 2026
With US military forces prepared to launch an unprovoked attack on Cuba, a group of congressional Democrats on Wednesday introduced a new war powers resolution in a bid to block President Donald Trump from launching yet another illegal war of choice.
Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, introduced the resolution, which would bar US forces from hostilities within or against Cuba without congressional authorization, as required under the 1973 War Powers Act. The measure is cosponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Joaquin Castro of Texas.
“Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world. As our country is already embroiled in a new war with Iran, the president has now set his sights on regime change in Cuba,” Velázquez said in a statement. “This administration is rushing toward another disastrous war, putting countless American and foreign lives at risk. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority if the president continues down this illegal path.”
Meeks, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are hellbent on starting another war, this time with Cuba, to distract from the president’s failure in Iran, weak economy, and mass deportation of 500,000 Cubans legally in the United States."
It is the second Cuba war powers resolution introduced by lawmakers since Trump began threatening to attack and "take" the island earlier this year. Last month, senators voted 51-47—with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joining all but two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky—to block a war powers resolution introduced in March by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
The new resolution's introduction follows months of escalating aggression against Cuba by the Trump administration, including preparation and threats to attack, an oil blockade that critics say is causing the deaths of infants and sick people, and last week's Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment of former President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 shoot-down of planes operated by a hostile US-based counterrevolutionary group following repeated warnings that they had violated Cuban airspace.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who has falsely claimed that his parents fled communism in Cuba when they actually emigrated during an earlier US-backed dictatorship—said that the island is "in a lot of trouble."
“Having a failed state 90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States," Rubio added.
An article published Wednesday by Politico highlighted US military preparations for various war scenarios for Cuba, including bombing, an invasion, or a mission to enforce the DOJ indictmebnt by kidnapping Castro in a manner similar to January's illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
According to Politico's Paul McLeary:
The armada in the region is slightly smaller than it was in January when the US captured Maduro. But the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group entered the Caribbean in May, along with several guided missile destroyers and cruisers that can launch precision missiles at targets onshore. An array of advanced American drones and surveillance aircraft have also circled Cuba for months, according to flight tracking sites. The USS Kearsarge amphibious ships and escorts, which carry 2,500 Marines, are off the coast of Virginia preparing for a new deployment, and could replace some ships heading home.
The surge provides a variety of military options, although the Pentagon would need additional troops for a massive ground invasion.
The Politico piece drew fierce rebuke from Havana.
"There are politicians in the United States pushing the drumbeat of war against Cuba, trying to fabricate excuses, trying to portray Cuba as a threat, and trying to push the US president to take military action, even with the understanding that military action would lead to bloodshed, mostly of Cubans, but also of Americans," Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío told The Los Angeles Times.
"The question is: How does a government convince American citizens that it is in their interest to cause death, cause destruction and suffering to a neighboring nation simply to satisfy the ambitions of a small cabal of wealthy, influential people who enjoy the ear of politicians and powerful people in Washington?" Fernández added.
Cuba has been shoring up international support amid the growing threat of US attack. On Tuesday, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez met with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who said earlier this month that “there is no military solution to be sought for Cuba."
On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a meeting with Rodríguez at United Nations headquarters in New York that "China will continue to uphold justice and speak up for Cuba, support the Cuban people’s just cause, and contribute to Cuba’s economic development and people’s livelihood."
Also on Wednesday, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Council for Foreign and Community Relations issued a statement affirming "Cuba’s sovereign right to import and receive fuel" and condemning "the obstruction of energy supplies to Cuba, which has precipitated a grave humanitarian crisis."
"Cuba poses no threat to any nation... it stands as a peaceful and cooperative member of the international community... [and] the continued application of these unilateral coercive measures constitutes an unjustifiable violation of human rights, the principles of free trade, and the fundamental norms governing relations among sovereign states," the council stated.
If the US launches military action against Cuba, it will be the 12th country attacked during Trump’s two terms in office. The president—who has repeatedly said that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has ordered attacks on Afghanistan, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen, and has bombed dozens of boats accused without evidence of transporting drugs in international waters in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
Last week, tens of thousands of Cubans rallied in Havana to denounce the indictment of Castro and US aggression against their homeland, which dates back to the revolution that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, one in a series of dictators backed by the United States after it granted Cuba conditional independence after conquering the island along with Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam during an 1898 war against Spain waged on a dubious pretext.
Since then, the United States has tried to assassinate former Cuban President Fidel Castro, backed the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, served as a base for perpetrators of some of the hemisphere’s worst terror attacks, and even hatched a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb high above the island to convince its people that the return of Jesus Christ was nigh and the only thing standing in the way of the long-awaited “Second Coming” was Castro.
Cuba has endured this aggression and more without retaliating against the United States. Despite this, the Trump administration has responded by inflicting more and more pain upon people it claims it is trying to liberate from oppression.
“If Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are serious about a new relationship with the Cuban people," Meeks said Wednesday, "they would reverse 65 years of failed US policy toward Cuba, end the oil blockade and the humanitarian crisis it caused, and work with Congress to modify the draconian and outdated US sanctions that disproportionately harm the Cuban people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let Us Vote': House GOP Blocks Dems’ Iran War Powers Resolution
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats will force a full vote when lawmakers return from recess next week.
Apr 09, 2026
US House Republicans thwarted an effort by Democrats to pass a war powers resolution to rein in President Donald Trump's attacks on Iran on Thursday, pushing it off until at least next week.
During a pro forma session Thursday morning with most members still out of town on recess, Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) attempted to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote using unanimous consent—a shortcut allowing legislation to pass instantly if all lawmakers agree.
But with a furious thwack of the gavel, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the pro forma speaker, abruptly brought the session to a close without allowing him to speak, prompting loud objections from other Democrats in the room.
“End the war. Let us vote,” shouted Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.).
Ivey was attempting a long shot bid to pass a resolution introduced back in March by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), which Democrats opted to punt until after the recess despite building momentum on Capitol Hill and despite Trump's growing belligerence against Iran, which culminated this week in a threat to wipe out the "whole civilization."
"My Democratic colleagues and I showed up on the House floor today to do our job and defend Congress’s constitutional war powers," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "Republicans refused to even recognize our resolution."
"They’re choosing this war, and Trump’s violence and chaos," he said.
The US and Iran reached a ceasefire on Tuesday night, but it's currently hanging by a thread after Israel launched an unprecedented assault on Lebanon that led Iran to retaliate by once again choking off travel through the critical Strait of Hormuz.
Calls from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to reconvene the House have fallen on deaf ears. War powers votes are expected to occur in both the House and Senate next week.
Previous measures have failed to pass both chambers. But prior to the recess, it appeared that reluctant House Democrats and at least three Republican defectors had gotten on board, potentially giving the measure enough votes to pass.
The Senate may pose more of an uphill battle. Most of the 47 Democratic Caucus members are expected to be on board, as is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) But the hawkish Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has stood in the way of past resolutions, and no other Republicans have signaled solid support.
However, lawmakers voting to continue the war will have to explain that decision to a wary public. An Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday showed that 53% of Americans oppose the war, while just 34% approve. The prospect of sending ground troops into Iran, which Trump has heavily considered, is even less popular, with just 15% of Americans supporting the idea.
"We need a permanent end to Donald Trump's costly and reckless war of choice," Jeffries said at a press conference Thursday afternoon. "Upon our return, we will force another vote on the House floor around the war powers resolution that will compel the Trump administration to cease military hostilities immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Threatens Genocidal Attack, House Democrats Rebuked for Dragging Feet on War Powers Vote
“Inaction from House Democratic leadership is complicity," said an organizer for the National Iranian American Council.
Apr 07, 2026
Democratic leadership in Congress has been quick to condemn President Donald Trump after his genocidal threat to wipe out Iranian civilization on Tuesday. But critics are wondering why they didn't take stronger action when they had the opportunity weeks ago.
Trump pledged Tuesday morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran refuses to open the Strait of Hormuz—a threat to carry out widespread destruction and mass slaughter across a nation of more than 90 million people.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) referred to the president as "an extremely sick person" and said "each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) joined in, agreeing that "Congress must immediately end this reckless war of choice in Iran before Donald Trump plunges us into World War III" and that "it's time for every single Republican to put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness."
Journalist Adam Johnson, however, noted that Democrats had a chance to “stop the madness” weeks ago, when it seemed they may have had the votes to pass a war powers resolution in the House at the end of March that would have limited Trump’s ability to further strike Iran. But instead, said Johnson, “ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) delayed the House War Powers vote until mid-April.”
At the time, Meeks contended that Democrats did not have enough votes to ensure the measure would pass and that he'd bring it to the floor only if it could be guaranteed that Democrats would win.
However, news reports indicated that at least three Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Nancy Mace (SC) were all likely on board to pass the resolution, as were most or all of the four Democrats who voted against the one that fell just short in February.
Meanwhile, some Democrats whose absences were cited to justify delaying the vote reportedly returned to town in time for one to be held.
Even if there were indeed not enough votes, it was unclear why Meeks believed additional votes would be there over two weeks later.
In the days since Democrats balked at bringing the resolution to the floor, Trump has moved thousands more US troops to the Middle East, and his threats against Iran have grown markedly more extreme.
Over Easter weekend, he threatened on Truth Social to launch attacks against civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, actions that Amnesty International said could amount to war crimes and "would unleash catastrophic harm on millions.” Asked about his comments during the White House Easter celebration, Trump said that if Iran does not open the strait by Tuesday, he is "considering blowing everything up."
He has also reportedly mulled committing ground troops to several operations to occupy parts of Iranian territory in hopes of securing the strait or to carry out a mission to seize Iran's enriched uranium, both of which experts have warned would likely prove catastrophic and put American troops in danger.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Meeks joined the chorus of Democrats condemning Trump's comments, saying that "threatening to destroy Iranian power plants and bridges is not a strategy, it is a war crime."
However, his statement did not mention any plans to re-launch a war powers resolution once Congress returns to session.
Meeks' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether he plans to bring the resolution back to the floor next week or whether he regretted not pushing harder to bring the vote before the recess.
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, described Trump's actions as a predictable result of Meeks and other House Democratic leaders "refusing to hold a vote to have Congress go on record about Trump's impending escalation."
"They knew escalation would entail genocidal war crimes and/or ground troops," he said, "and still let the House stay silent."
Iran has remained steadfast that it will not negotiate a ceasefire unless the US agrees to completely end hostilities, lift sanctions, and compensate Iran for the war's damage.
A former Iranian diplomat briefed on negotiations between Iran and Omani mediators told The New York Times that the plan called on the US Congress to formally end the war and that any compensation would have to be guaranteed by the legislative branch.
According to a CNN poll released last week, disapproval of Trump's war in Iran has risen over the past month, with 66% of Americans saying they somewhat or strongly oppose it and just 34% in approval.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez, who has covered previous attempts by Democrats to drag out war powers votes, said that the party "could position themselves as the ones ending this historically unpopular war."
"They could force war powers vote after war powers vote," she said. "They’re choosing not to."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is planning a press conference with around two dozen other groups outside Jeffries' office in New York on Thursday to protest what it called "a dangerous act of political negligence" by House Democrats, "that continues to leave the illegal US-Israel war on Iran unchecked."
“Inaction from House Democratic leadership is complicity," said Etan Mabourakh, NIAC Action's organizing manager. "Our Iranian American community will not let Democrats repeat previous mistakes out of political fear... we demand leaders with the courage to act boldly and take votes in the House to stop this war now."
But as Trump's threats grow more "unhinged," some in Congress are saying merely reining in his war powers is no longer enough and many Democrats have called for him to be impeached or removed by his Cabinet via the 25th Amendment.
"Yes. We need to assert congressional authority and stop this illegal war in Iran, said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "But, Trump is clearly an unstable warmonger at odds with the will of the people. Removal is the top priority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrats Face Rising Pressure to ‘Bring the Iran War Powers Resolution to the Floor Right Now’
Democrats may have enough votes to pass a war powers resolution before the two-week recess, but party leaders have still not committed to doing so, even as the president appears ready for a ground invasion.
Mar 26, 2026
Backlash is continuing to grow after US House Democratic leaders made the decision to push off a war powers vote on President Donald Trump's Iran war for more than two weeks, even though they may have the votes to pass it immediately.
With Trump appearing poised to make the deathly unpopular decision to deploy ground troops into Iran within days, momentum around an act to restrict his warmaking capabilities only continues to grow.
Most of the Democrats who killed the last war powers resolution are now reportedly on board. So is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who emerged from a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Wednesday saying she was “even more” opposed to boots on the ground than when she entered.
But despite having introduced the resolution himself, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, appeared to get cold feet about bringing it to the floor for a vote before next week's recess, a move which was met with anger and confusion from progressive critics.
A spokesperson for Democrats on the committee told Common Dreams on Wednesday that Meeks was very much committed to passing a bill to "hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," but that one could not be pursued until April 13, after the recess, because some of the necessary "yes" votes had left Washington.
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described this as a "pathetic" excuse. "As Trump threatens a ground invasion, Democratic members of Congress are saying they won’t do the one thing they are elected to do: Show up and vote," he wrote on social media.
Additionally, Grim reported on Thursday that Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) had since returned to town. The only Democrat not currently in DC, he said, was Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), who said on Wednesday that his wife was undergoing a routine surgery.
Axios reported on Thursday afternoon that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) is also absent due to the recent death of his father, and Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), one of the Democrats who opposed the last war powers vote, was still wavering as of Wednesday.
Even with some absences, Republicans are also not at full strength. Assuming that Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Warren Davidson (Ohio) plan to vote yes, as they did in February, there may still be enough votes for the resolution to pass.
When asked by Drop Site reporter Lily Franks on Thursday whether there were enough votes to pass the resolution, Meeks insisted, "We can't win the vote."
"When you see me put the bill on the floor, that means we're going to win," Meeks said sharply. "I know how to count. I know how to do my job."
When Franks pointed out that enough Republicans appeared to be on board, Meeks—continuing to interrupt—told her to "go find out" herself if there were enough votes.
"If only there were some mechanism on the House floor to find out how somebody might vote," Grim quipped in response.
The Democratic spokesperson could not be reached for comment when asked by Common Dreams whether Meeks was now planning to push for a resolution vote before the recess, given that some Democrats have returned to Washington.
Nathan Thompson, a senior policy adviser for Just Foreign Policy, argues that even if Democrats do not have the votes to pass the resolution now, there is no reason not to bring it to a vote.
"Forcing a vote will make House Republicans own an increasingly likely ground invasion," he said in a letter sent to House Democrats on Thursday morning, which was shared with Common Dreams. "Even a vote that falls short will be painful for House Republicans and put real pressure on the Trump administration."
"The attendance excuse doesn't hold," he said. "Members can return by tomorrow to vote, and Republicans aren't at full strength either... An unfortunate scheduling error should not prevent Congress from weighing in at a critical moment in history."
Calls for a war powers resolution on Capitol Hill continued to grow after reports that the Trump administration is mulling several potential ground operations in Iran, potentially as early as Friday.
Axios reported on Thursday that the Pentagon is considering "invading or blockading" Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub—and sending American forces “deep inside the interior of Iran” in an effort to seize the country’s enriched uranium.
The concerns about the repercussions of a prolonged war—even for just another two weeks—are broadly shared. Speaking on MS NOW on Thursday, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that serious dangers exist that a short extension of the war could lead to a much more intractable situation.
"If we continue the war," Panetta said, "if we go another 16 days of war and we incur casualties, or they incur serious casualties, then the likelihood is that you're planting the seeds for a more permanent war."
As the risk of a more protracted conflict was magnified on Wednesday, Trump insisted that the US is not at war at all, but is simply waging a "military operation" against Iran.
This has heightened the urgency among many Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"If it looks like a war, sounds like a war, and costs like a war… It’s probably a war," the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote on social media Thursday. "Trump is admitting to violating the Constitution. No amount of doublespeak can change that."
"Congress must vote on another war powers resolution," she added.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios that there was "absolutely" frustration among progressives that Democrats were planning to punt the vote to next month.
Meanwhile, critics are increasingly raising suspicion that Meeks—whom The Lever noted received more than $2.2 million from pro-Israel lobbying groups according to the watchdog group TrackAIPAC—is intentionally dragging out the vote.
A prolonged war and the resulting economic turmoil are brutally unpopular, including among Republicans, and the theory goes that Democrats may seek to let it become an albatross around their opponents' necks in this fall's midterms.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez has emphasized that Meeks held up the previous war powers vote by overinflating the number of Democrats likely to defect, and may have attempted to do so again.
But with Democratic stragglers on board and more Republicans "starting to break," Chávez said: "Democratic leadership can’t keep hiding behind process.
"Bring the Iran war powers resolution to the floor right now," she said.
Thompson of Just Foreign Policy warned Democrats that "failing to force a vote will be noticed and covered in the media," and that "the Democratic base is watching and expects their party to put up a real fight."
"Even if the vote falls short by a couple votes, the members who voted yes will have a powerful record to champion to their constituents," he said. "The members who voted no will have a very difficult record to explain if troops end up being killed and injured on the ground in Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jayapal-Meeks Bill Would Block Trump From Using Federal Funds for Military Attack on Cuba
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
Mar 26, 2026
Amid calls for Congress to "do something—before it is too late," a pair of US House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Prevent an Unconstitutional War in Cuba Act to block President Donald Trump from using any federal funds to take military action against the island nation without congressional authorization.
The proposal from Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes after Trump ramped up the United States' decades-long economic blockade, cutting off Cuba from Venezuelan oil. The fuel shortage has led to island-wide blackouts, and disrupted everything from healthcare to transportation. As Jayapal put it earlier this month, the "cruel and failing policy... has caused incredible harm to the Cuban people."
Trump has also repeatedly threatened a US takeover of Cuba. His other misadventures abroad—such as joining Israel in waging war on Iran without authorization from Congress, bombing boats allegedly being used to smuggle drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, and abducting President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela in an operation that killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans—have fueled fears that he may act on those threats, as Jayapal signaled in a Thursday statement.
“Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba. These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want," she said. "Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied. Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
The bill's prohibition on funding military action against Cuba does not apply to any use of force that is consistent with the section of the War Powers Act that empowers the president to respond to a "national emergency" created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces. In January, Trump notably signed an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to Cuba and authorized new tariffs on imports from countries that supply oil to the island.
As with Iran pre-war, the Trump administration is currently engaged in negotiations with the Cuban government. Those talks are being led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change in the country, who said earlier this month that "the embargo is tied to political change on the island... They're in a lot of trouble, and the people in charge, they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge."
Predictions over whether Trump will actually bomb or invade Cuba, which is located just 90 miles south of Florida, remain mixed.
"I think once Donald Trump gets an economic agreement that opens the island to US business, he will have fulfilled his transactional aims in Cuba. I don't think he cares about political transition. He doesn't seem to care about it in Venezuela," American University professor and Back Channel to Cuba coauthor William LeoGrande told USA Today this week. "And so, I think once there's an economic agreement that's to the advantage of the United States and US businesses, the president will move on to the next thing."
Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson, who's reported on the Nuestra América Convoy from Havana this week, declared on Wednesday that "they WILL run the Venezuela playbook on Cuba."
"They want a Republican donor imperial viceroy who will privatize the Cuban healthcare and school systems, and hand all the waterfront property to developers, with the Cuban people serving as cheap labor building a playground for Miami's rich," said Robinson.
Meeks—who is facing pressure to force a vote on his Iran war powers resolution—said Thursday that "Cuba is not for Donald Trump to take, and today we stand firm against the illegal use of the US military to pursue turning Cuba into another playground for Trump's chaotic adventurism."
"Such a reckless course would risk American lives, cost taxpayers billions, and, in all likelihood, leave the underlying political and economic conditions unchanged," he said. "The United States cannot bomb Cuba out of economic collapse or political repression—lasting change must come through empowering the Cuban people, not doubling down on a failed approach that disproportionately harms them."
The new bill is backed by Democratic Reps. Gabe Amo (RI), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Dina Titus (Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Nydia Velázquez (NY). However, like legislation aimed at stopping Trump's boat strikes, aggression toward Venezuela, and war on Iran, it is unlikely to be passed by the GOP-controlled Congress.
Still, earlier this week, Velázquez also introduced a war powers resolution to prevent US involvement in military hostilities against the island. She said in a statement that "Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world."
"This administration's foreign policy is totally out of control and is putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," Velázquez warned. "Trump's military blockade, his threats, and his track record this term show that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and stop another disastrous war before it's too late."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Slam Meeks, Jeffries Pushing Off War Powers Bill Just as It Gets Enough Votes to Pass
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," said one progressive policy adviser. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
Mar 25, 2026
Democratic Party leaders are under fire after it was reported that they plan to wait until mid-April to hold a vote to rein in President Donald Trump's powers to wage war with Iran.
Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday that US House lawmakers had abandoned plans to hold a vote this week on a war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
With a two-week recess beginning next week, postponing the vote means the earliest Democrats could force it again is April 13.
A previous war powers resolution, which came to the floor just days after the US and Israel launched the war at the end of February, failed by a razor-thin margin when four pro-war Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.)—joined the bulk of Republicans to kill it.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there are “ongoing conversations” about passing a war powers resolution “sooner rather than later." He said, “When we present something on the floor, it’s our determination to win.”
But Democrats would likely be in a position to "win" the vote if it were held this week. Andrew Solender reported on Tuesday for Axios that following intense criticism from the grassroots base and pressure from party leadership, "most, if not all, of the four defectors are expected to flip and vote for the measure this time."
Solender later reported that Meeks was undecided about the measure. While the New York Democrat confirmed to Axios that the party had gotten defectors on board, he said he "hasn’t decided whether to force a vote on his war powers resolution this week or in mid-April."
Democratic leadership has already been accused of attempting to sabotage a previous resolution introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in late February by waiting to vote on it until after Trump launched the war.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez, who reported on these stall tactics in February, noted that Meeks "previously tried to delay a vote by warning 40 Democrats could oppose it. In the end, just four did."
"Now Meeks is saying he may not hold the vote because one member could vote no," Chávez wrote on social media. "If Democrats are unified, this Iran war powers resolution could actually pass... That makes Democratic leadership’s refusal to force a vote ASAP even more indefensible."
The decision to punt yet another resolution for nearly three weeks has ignited even more outrage and suspicion among progressives, especially amid reports that Trump is sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East and is mulling a ground invasion of Iran.
"It would be extremely alarming for Reps. Jeffries and Meeks to waver now on forcing a war powers vote," said Cavan Kharrazian, the senior policy adviser for Demand Progress. "Delaying a war powers vote now effectively gives Trump two more weeks to continue and escalate the war in Iran."
Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, went further, accusing Meeks of backing off the resolution precisely "because it now may have the votes to pass." He contended that "Democrats secretly want this war to continue because it hurts Trump."
The war is indeed highly unpopular, with 59% of Americans saying it has "gone too far," according to an Associated Press-NORC poll published Wednesday. Its cascading effects throughout the economy—particularly the sharp increases in gas prices across the US—also have the potential to harm Trump, who has shed support for failing to address the high cost of living.
Andrei Vasilescu, the director of communications for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Common Dreams that Meeks was "whipping a vote precisely so it passes, and any accusations to the contrary are absurd."
He said many members of the House are not currently in DC and that passing the resolution would require all of the "yes" votes to be present.
"Ranking Member Meeks could not be clearer about his opposition to the war, and is working through this resolution and all other available tools to hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," he added.
He noted that Meeks also introduced a motion on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to testify about the war.
According to the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA), a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,443 civilians, including 217 children, have been killed by US and Israeli strikes since the war began on February 28. Lebanon's Ministry of Health reported last week that more than 1,000 civilians have been killed by Israeli attacks as it expanded its military campaign there in early March.
"This war is a disaster, it’s unpopular, and civilians across the region are dying," Kharrazian of Demand Progress said. "This is a moment for anti-war leadership, not hesitation. The House should be on the record now, especially when reporting suggests the votes are there to pass a war powers resolution."
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," he added. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Hegseth Refuses to Release Video of Boat Murder, AOC Calls Briefing a 'Joke'
"Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it," Sen. Mark Kelly said of administration officials after the meeting.
Dec 16, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that the Pentagon will not release unedited video footage of a September airstrike that killed two men who survived an initial strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea, a move that followed a briefing with congressional lawmakers described by one Democrat as an "exercise in futility" and by another as "a joke."
Hegseth said that members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees would be given a chance to view video of the September 2 "double-tap" strike, which experts said was illegal like all the other boat bombings. The secretary did not say whether all congressional lawmakers would be provided access to the footage.
“Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters following a closed-door briefing during which he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio fielded questions from lawmakers.
As with a similar briefing earlier this month, Tuesday's meeting left some Democrat attendees with more questions than answers.
“The administration came to this briefing empty-handed,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters. “If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean?”
That includes preparations for a possible attack on oil-rich Venezuela, which include the deployment of US warships and thousands of troops to the region and the authorization of covert action aimed at toppling the government of longtime Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Tuesday's briefing came as House lawmakers prepare to vote this week on a pair of war powers resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from waging war on Venezuela. A similar bipartisan resolution recently failed in the Senate.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-author of one of the new war powers resolution, said in a statement: “Today’s briefing from Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth was an exercise in futility. It did nothing to address the serious legal, strategic, and moral concerns surrounding the administration’s unprecedented use of US military force in the Caribbean and Pacific."
"As of today, the administration has already carried out 25 such strikes over three months, extrajudicially killing 95 people," Meeks noted. "That this briefing to members of Congress only occurred more than three months since the strikes began—despite numerous requests for classified and public briefings—further proves these operations are unable to withstand scrutiny and lack a defensible legal rationale."
Briefing attendee Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)—who is in the administration's crosshairs for reminding US troops that military rules and international law require them to disobey illegal orders—said of Trump officials, "Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it."
Defending Hegseth's decision to not make the boat strike video public, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that “there’s a lot of members that’s gonna walk out there and that’s gonna leak classified information and there’s gonna be certain ones that you hold accountable."
Mullin singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who, along with the Somalian American community at large, has been the target of mounting Islamophobic and racist abuse by Trump and his supporters.
“Not everybody can go through the same background checks that need to be cleared on this,” he said. “Do you think Omar needs all this information? I will say no.”
Rejecting GOP arguments against releasing the video, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said after attending Tuesday's briefing: “I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think the American people should see this video. And all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump State Dept Announces Withdrawal From UNESCO Over Palestine Inclusion
Like: Palestinian officials responded by urging the U.S. not to "bind its own international standing to the crimes and violations committed by Israel."
Jul 22, 2025
The Trump administration's unrelenting backing of Israel was on display Tuesday as the U.S. State Department withdrew support for the United Nations agency tasked with promoting education and cultural understanding—but the organization's leader pledged that it would continue its work while welcoming "all the nations of the world."
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited the decision by the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to accept the state of Palestine as a member state as part of the reason for the Trump administration's withdrawal.
The inclusion of Palestine is "contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization," Bruce claimed without citing examples.
Audrey Azoulay, director-general of the agency, said the U.S. withdrawal—which President Donald Trump also imposed during his first term, and which will eliminate about 8% of UNESCO's international funding—was "regrettable," but that the organization would continue operating without a reduction in staff, having prepared for the president's exit.
"In spite of President Donald Trump's first withdrawal in 2017, UNESCO stepped up its efforts to take action wherever its mission could contribute to peace and demonstrated the pivotal nature of its mandate," said Azoulay, noting that UNESCO adopted a "global standard-setting instrument on the ethics of artificial intelligence," developed major programs for education in conflict settings, took action to defend biodiversity, and oversaw the reconstruction of Mosul, Iraq—all without the participation of the United States.
Azoulay added that the reasons for the U.S. withdrawal, which will go into effect in December 2026, "contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism."
"Palestine firmly rejects the justifications provided by the United States for its withdrawal, considering them an unacceptable politicization of UNESCO's work and a failed attempt to deflect attention from the violations committed by Israel."
The Trump administration, along with many establishment Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has explicitly equated expressions of support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. UNESCO has denounced the Israeli government and military for their destruction of schools and cultural sites and their killing of journalists in Gaza.
Azoulay emphasized that UNESCO is "the only United Nations agency responsible" for promoting Holocaust education and for the global fight against antisemitism, "and its work has been unanimously acclaimed by major specialized organizations such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., the World Jewish Congress and its American Section, and the American Jewish Committee (AJC)."
"UNESCO will continue to carry out these missions," she said, "despite inevitably reduced resources."
The agency is also well known for designating World Heritage sites, more than 20 of which are in the United States.
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the withdrawal from UNESCO "another assault by the Trump administration on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership."
Along with promoting education about the Holocaust, Meeks said, UNESCO "directly benefits the U.S. economy through its Creative Cities and World Heritage programs, through which the United States has recently secured two new World Heritage inscriptions in Ohio and Pennsylvania—promoting to the world the beauty, culture, and heritage of American cities."
Before Trump withdrew from UNESCO for the first time in 2017, the Obama administration cut funding to the organization after it admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011.
The state of Palestine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "deep regret" over the Trump administration's decision on Tuesday.
"Palestine firmly rejects the justifications provided by the United States for its withdrawal, considering them an unacceptable politicization of UNESCO's work and a failed attempt to deflect attention from the violations committed by Israel, the illegal occupying power, against heritage, culture, and archaeological sites in Palestine, as well as in other areas such as education, science, media, and the environment," said officials.
The ministry also advised the U.S. not to "bind its own international standing to the crimes and violations committed by Israel."
"Otherwise," it said, "it would find itself compelled to withdraw from the entire multilateral international system, in order to shield Israel from accountability, thus encouraging it to continue perpetrating its crimes as a rogue state operating outside the framework of international legality."
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