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
hakeem jeffries
Progressive Caucus Leader Urges 'Yes' Vote on Amendment to End US Military Aid to Israel
"The American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel's military."
Jul 14, 2026
After House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries blew what one organizer called “a real opportunity... to show he’s listening” to the Democratic Party’s base by opposing an amendment to end US military aid to Israel, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Tuesday urged colleagues to support the measure.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, Jeffries (D-NY) announced in a "dear colleague" letter that he would oppose Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a national security spending bill that would eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided to Israel’s military under a memorandum of understanding signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2016.
The US has also given billions of dollars in additional armed aid to Israel since it began waging its US-backed war on Gaza after the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The minority leader called the amendment "overly broad" and said it would limit the US' ability to "confront Hamas."
Jeffries' letter came "just weeks after his fundraising committee received the largest earmarked disbursement in the history of AIPAC's political action committee," Sludge's Donald Shaw reported Tuesday, referring to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the congressman's single-largest campaign donor.
Massie's effort comes just weeks after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives blocked a separate amendment introduced by the Kentucky Republican and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove a provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 that would establish a formal “United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative," which critics argue deepens military integration between the two allies under the guise of reducing aid.
Responding to Jeffries' letter, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) sent one of his own, contending that "the American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military."
"At a time when millions are struggling to make ends meet, we are sending billions of dollars to a military that has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, destabilized the region, and helped lead us into war with Iran," Casar noted.
"Over the weekend, the Israeli military detained a member of Congress attempting to conduct oversight in the West Bank," his letter continues, referencing a recent incident involving Khanna. "We cannot continue to subsidize this."
Israel's war on Gaza alone has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded (including people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble) and around 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case filed against Israel by South Africa and formally backed by nearly 20 nations.
United Nations experts; Israeli and international scholars, jurists, and human rights groups; and US lawmakers including Casar are among those who have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
"At its best, the Progressive Caucus’ role is to be an independent voice and lead on important issues of peace and human rights," Casar's letter asserts. "After the Israeli government has killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza and helped lead the United States into a destabilizing, deadly war with Iran, we are called to act."
"The Democratic Party needs a new approach to Israel and Palestine," Casar stressed. "When Democrats retake the majority in November, I hope the Progressive Caucus can help lead our party toward a position that secures safety, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike."
Both Casar and the CPC are supporters of the Block the Bombs Act, first introduced in May 2025 by Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) and now backed by more than 60 lawmakers. The CPC has also endorsed Massie's amendment.
US public opposition to Israel has grown alongside the death toll in Gaza. More than half of Democratic voters surveyed for an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll published last week said they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. An August 2025 Quinnipiac poll found that 60% of respondents opposed additional military aid to Israel, while just 32% supported it. Opposition was especially high among Democrats (75%) and independents (66%).
Noting these figures, the progressive grassroots group RootsAction said Tuesday that "Jeffries has turned his back on nearly 75% of Democrats who say they want military aid to Israel to be halted" and "has chosen instead to side with the Democratic Party old guard—the same dominant faction that lost twice to [President] Donald Trump."
"Jeffries’s stance is morally unconscionable and politically myopic," RootsAction added. "For nearly three years, Israel has committed genocide in Gaza in full view of the world. Polling has shown that the Democratic Party leadership’s inability to distance itself from the onslaught in Gaza cost its candidates many votes in 2024. This pattern will repeat if the party is unable to change its stance."
Later on Tuesday, US senators voted 50-46 almost entirely along party lines to block debate on the 2027 NDAA over the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran and proposed US-Israeli military integration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hakeem Jeffries Rebuked for Opposing Amendment to End US Military Aid to Israel
"Why does Democratic leadership continue to oppose a measure supported by 74% of Democratic voters?" asked one commentator.
Jul 14, 2026
With a key amendment to a 2027 spending bill expected to come up for a vote in the US House of Representatives in the coming days, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had what one organizer called "a real opportunity... to show he's listening" to the Democratic Party's base and its growing disapproval of US military aid for Israel.
But on Tuesday, progressive advocates said Jeffries (D-NY) had squandered that opportunity by announcing in a Dear Colleague letter that he would oppose the amendment put forward by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which would eliminate the $3.3 billion the US provides to Israel's military annually.
Last month, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who was detained by armed Israeli settlers in the West Bank this week—urged his colleagues to back the amendment, calling US support for Israel "the moral test of our time" as he stood in front of a memorial for 20,000 children killed by the Israeli military in Gaza.
In the letter and at a caucus meeting Tuesday morning, Jeffries claimed the amendment was "overly broad" and could limit funds for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and other operations.
He also asserted that the funding cut would restrict the United States' ability to "confront Hamas."
The US government, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, has relentlessly claimed that Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza that began in 2023 has targeted Hamas, even as refugee camps, schools, hospitals, residential buildings, aid workers, and children have been targeted by the Israel Defense Forces and as Israel has concurrently ramped up violent efforts to annex the West Bank.
A ceasefire in Gaza was reached in October 2025, but more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since the deal was signed. In all, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed.
As the US has continued to give material and political support to Israel, approval of the military aid and the Israeli government has plummeted among the American public.
More than half of Democratic voters said in an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll last week that they believed the US-backed military operation amounted to a genocide.
A Quinnipiac University poll found last August that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 60% of all voters supported suspending US weapons aid to Israel.
A number of progressive Democratic challengers, including Melat Kiros in Colorado, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, have also decisively won primary races in recent months after campaigning on a suspension of US military aid to Israel, noted Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats.
In the corporate press, the issue at hand was described as one that has "sharply divided" Democrats in recent weeks—a characterization that Adam Johnson of the podcast "Citations Needed" vehemently rejected.
"This issue is very much not 'dividing' the party writ large," said Johnson. "Support for cutting aid to Israel among Dems is 74-20. Only 13% of Democrats have a positive view of Israel—less than the percentage of Democrats who support full abortion bans."
The "divide," said Johnson, is between voters and the party leadership, particularly Democrats who—like Jeffries—have taken millions of dollars from the pro-Israel lobby.
"Why does Democratic leadership continue to oppose a measure supported by 74% of Democratic voters?" asked Johnson. "Where are all the popularism pundits decrying the Democrats' out-of-touch leadership, ignoring a broadly popular position, one also supported by the majority of independents?"
Jeffries said in the Dear Colleague letter that his opposition to the amendment was "consistent" with that of "pro-peace organizations like J Street."
J Street, which describes itself as a "pro-peace" and "liberal Zionist" group, expressed opposition to the amendment, but said it would also "support those members who vote yes to signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how US security assistance is used."
Erik Sperling, executive director of the progressive think tank Just Foreign Policy, said J Street's "hedging" on the amendment was "a moral stain" for the organization.
"Genuine pro-peace groups cannot allow billions in US taxpayer money to be sent to [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel now," said Sperling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not How It Works': Critics Slam Trump Bid to Restart Legal Clock on Illegal Iran War
"The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either," said one conservative critic.
Jul 13, 2026
Critics from both sides of the political aisle on Monday denounced President Donald Trump's effort to construct a facade of legality for the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran by notifying Congress of renewed military strikes on the Mideast nation.
Trump claimed in a letter to members of Congress that, on July 7, he ordered "defensive strikes against targets within Iran, including missile launch sites, air defenses, military maritime assets, military support infrastructure, and command and control capabilities."
"These strikes are limited, measured, planned, and executed in a manner designed to minimize civilian casualties," wrote Trump, whose war has killed more than 3,400 people—hundreds of them children—and wounded over 26,500 others since February 28, according to Iran's Ministry of Health.
"I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution," the president added.
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 limit 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.
Elected Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump's argument that the negotiated ceasefire he's now abandoned resets the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
Asked Monday by CNN's Kaitlan Collins if this is "just the new normal for the American people," Trump—who has called himself the "peace president"—replied, "No, well, you know, we were in Vietnam for 19 years; we're [in Iran] for four months."
Trump said during the same press conference that "we're doing another very major attack tonight" in Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Monday that US forces "began launching the third consecutive night of strikes against Iran, at the Commander in Chief's direction."
"These strikes will continue imposing a heavy cost on Iranian forces and degrade their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz," CENTCOM added.
Responding to the president's letter, former libertarian Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said on social media: "This is not how it works. The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either. Regardless, we’re talking about a single war. You don’t get to pause it and then pretend it’s a different war."
Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) also took to social media, writing: "Trump said the war with Iran was over. He lied."
"Now he is telling Congress the United States is at war again—and claiming another 60 days to wage it without congressional approval," she added. "He cannot end a war on paper to dodge the law, then restart the clock when it suits him. No more lies. No more endless wars."
Aaron Fritschner, Rep. Don Beyer's (D-Va.) deputy chief of staff, said that Trump administration officials "may think the Congress and citizenry are extremely stupid, and they are mistaken," adding that the Iran War "is obviously illegal."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen dragged what she described as "a forever war in 60-day increments."
Politico House leadership reporter Riley Rogerson asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) whether Democrats are planning on pursuing another war powers resolution like the one passed last month by both chambers of Congress aimed at blocking Trump's ability to keep attacking Iran.
"We have advanced multiple war powers resolutions up until this point, and we will continue to use every legislative tool available to end Donald Trump and the Republican reckless and costly war of choice in Iran," Jeffries replied.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Crypto, AI Industries Setting Up ‘Pop-Up Super PACs’ to Defeat Big Tech Critics in Dem Primaries
The goal of these political action committees, explained one journalist, is to make sure voters “never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens.”
May 22, 2026
Corporate interests are meddling in Democratic primaries by setting up what are being described as "pop-up super PACs" aimed at taking down candidates who are critical of Big Tech.
During a Friday episode of The Intercept Briefing podcast, political reporter Matt Sledge outlined how US campaign finance law allows for moneyed interests to swoop into political campaigns at the last minute and flood the airwaves with misleading ads about progressive candidates.
Specifically, Sledge said that Big Tech-affiliated groups have figured out how to "game campaign finance deadlines and create super PACs, or political action committees, to funnel money to other super PACs so that reporting deadlines are missed."
As a result, said Sledge, these “pop-up super PACs" can bombard voters with last-minute propaganda in the closing days of campaigns—and voters will "never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens."
"Some of these newer industries that are getting in on the campaign spending game, like crypto and artificial intelligence, are also setting up entire networks of super PACs," Sledge added, "sometimes a mama or a papa super PAC, and then a Democratic-affiliated super PAC and a Republican-affiliated super PAC so that both donors can channel their money to one party affiliate and to make it a little harder for voters to track where all the money is coming from."
A Thursday report from Politico documented how a mysterious super PAC called Lead Left has been been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit Maureen Galindo, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Texas who has been broadly condemned for comments about transforming a local immigration detention facility into a "prison for American Zionists."
Democrats have accused GOP-backed interests of funding Lead Left, which they say is misleadingly posing as a progressive organization, to boost the prospects of fringe candidates such as Galindo.
In a video posted to social media on Friday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) noted that members of his caucus from across the ideological spectrum had condemned Galindo, and said that "Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy."
"This candidate is being propped up by a Republican shadowy super PAC to elevate her in the primary," Jeffries said, "because they know she'll be an incredibly weak general election candidate."
People of goodwill have forcefully rejected the antisemitic and anti-American candidate in the TX-35 run-off.
Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy. pic.twitter.com/CUFhqvEdLQ
— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) May 22, 2026
According to Politico, such operations have been occurring throughout the country.
"Shady PACs have become a staple of the cycle, and modern campaigns generally," Politico reported. "In two House special elections last year in Virginia and Arizona, pop-up PACs spent on ads and avoided having to disclose who was behind them until after primary contests were complete. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has used shell PACs to shield its involvement in some races this year. Another group, Real Change PAC, started spending in New Jersey’s 7th District on Wednesday."
Last week, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, accusing Lead Left of both "strategically gaming federal reporting deadlines to avoid disclosing the sources of its election spending," while also violating "federal campaign finance laws requiring full transparency about the recipients of that spending" in a scheme to conceal "crucial information about how it is spending its money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Action': Ro Khanna Calls for Expansion of 'Morally Bankrupt' Supreme Court
"The next Democratic White House does not need a court reform commission like some college seminar," said the California Democrat.
May 12, 2026
With a right-wing supermajority controlling the US Supreme Court, and the recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais yet again displaying the court's "war on constitutional democracy," as one legal expert put it, US Rep. Ro Khanna is pushing for Democrats to move with just as much certainty as the far-right justices as soon as the party is able to reform the court.
In a social media post Tuesday morning, Khanna (D-Calif.) suggested the Democratic Party has all the information it needs to take decisive action to rein in the court as soon as it controls the White House once again—instead of simply "exploring" the possibility of judicial reform.
"The next Democratic White House does not need a court reform commission like some college seminar," said Khanna, who has been named a potential 2028 presidential contender. "We need action. We need term limits for justices. We need to expand this morally bankrupt court from nine to 13."
Khanna is among the progressive lawmakers who have previously expressed support for replacing Supreme Court justices' lifetime appointments with term limits and for expanding the court, which polls have found the majority of Americans support.
The congressman's comments came three days after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was interviewed by Ali Velshi on MS NOW about the Democratic Party's plans to reform the federal government, should it retake the US House of Representatives and Senate after the November midterm elections and the White House in 2028.
Jeffries called for "nationwide judicial reform," without mentioning specific actions the party should take to reform the court following multiple corruption and ethics scandals involving right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as well as rulings like Callais, which eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for Republican legislatures to redraw congressional maps and eliminate the electoral power of Black communities in the South and across the country.
The ruling of the supposedly nonpartisan high court appeared timed to allow the GOP to redraw districts before the midterms, maximizing their chances of winning seats.
"We are going to have to explore massive judicial reform, state by state and at the federal level, and everything should be on the table, as far as I'm concerned," said Jeffries.
Democrat Judicial Takeover?!
Hakeem Jeffries just proposed a left-wing takeover of the U.S. court system NATIONWIDE if Democrats regain power:
"We're going to have to explore judicial 'reform' state by state and at the federal level...everything should be on the table as far as… pic.twitter.com/yUBN2Wy9Zu
— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) May 11, 2026
Ahead of the Callais ruling late last month, the Brennan Center for Justice published a report on several actions Congress could take "to fix the Supreme Court," which currently "wields vast power with minimal accountability" and has the confidence of less than a quarter of Americans, according to polling. Lawmakers, said the group, should take actions including:
- Enacting 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as a system of regular appointments, allowing each president to name two justices per term and "infusing the institution with fresh perspectives and lowering the stakes of each confirmation process, all while enhancing the democratic link between the court and the public";
- Requiring justices to abide by a binding code of ethics, similar to those that guide every other court in the US, instead of a voluntary code that was adopted in 2023 after outcry over several ethics scandals;
- Curbing abuses of the court's "shadow docket," which the Trump administration has asked justices to use dozens of times to intervene in lower court rulings in order to protect its own political agenda from legal rulings; and
- Allowing cameras in the courtroom in "an important step toward transparency" that would "help Americans better understand how the court reaches decisions that affect their lives."
Advocacy groups including Demand Justice have called for expanding the court from nine to 13 seats, a move that the group says is "straightforward, constitutional, and grounded in history," with Congress having changed the number of justices that sit on the court six times in the past. A number of Democratic lawmakers have expressed support for court expansion, and former President Joe Biden convened a commission to study reforms in 2021.
At The Guardian on Tuesday, Austin Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, recalled the historian Henry Steele Commager's 1943 warning that the Supreme Court "had never been a friend to US democracy, and it never would be."
"For anyone committed to the advancement of majority rule, he added, judicial review 'is wrong in theory and dangerous in practice,'" wrote Sarat, who said the Callais ruling put the danger Commager warned of "on full display"—as have a number of rulings since the court allowed unlimited corporate spending on elections in 2010 with its Citizens United ruling.
"Commager would not have been surprised by what has unfolded since 2010, but he would have warned Americans against despair," wrote Sarat. "He would want us to get busy trying to save what is left of our democracy by using our votes and our voices. There is no time to waste."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Economic Adviser Boasts That US Consumers Are 'Spending More on Gasoline' and 'Everything Else'
"Is this supposed to be a brag?" said Democratic US Rep. Mark Pocan.
May 06, 2026
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Wednesday tried to put a rosy spin on President Donald Trump's economy by highlighting the large credit card bills being racked up by US consumers.
During an interview on Fox Business, Hassett cited credit card spending as a purported sign of strength in the economy as a whole.
"I had the head of one of the Big Five banks in my office yesterday, going through credit card data," he said. "Credit card spending is through the roof! They're spending more on gasoline, but they're spending more on everything else too."
Hassett on American consumers: "Credit card spending is through the roof. They're spending more on gasoline, but they're spending more on everything else too." pic.twitter.com/zayCSaxhwr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 6, 2026
The price of oil has been surging since Trump launched an illegal war with Iran in late February, and on Wednesday the average price for a gallon of gasoline in the US topped $4.50, a high not seen since 2022 in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As the Iran crisis persists, economists project that the price of energy will be reflected in increases in other consumer goods, most notably food.
Given this, many critics were astonished that Hassett decided to brag about consumer credit card spending as a way to reassure Americans concerned about the economy.
"Working-class Americans are maxing out their credit cards to pay for groceries and gas," wrote House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). "The Trump Cartel thinks this is something to celebrate. Shameful."
Hassett's claims about credit card spending also earned a swift rebuke from Warren Gunnels, staff director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"Americans are putting more stuff on credit cards because they don’t have enough money to pay for the skyrocketing cost of virtually everything," Gunnels wrote. "Trump promised to put a 10% cap on credit card interest rates. Instead, the average credit card interest rate today is 22%. Obscene."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, could not hide his disgust at Hassett's performance.
"He’s smiling," Wellman observed. "He's celebrating that we are all maxing out our credit cards because they have torched the economy. He’s not smiling for working people. He’s happy for the corporations and billionaires. It's good for them. We can all die poor. This is why I'm running for Congress."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) expressed bewilderment at Hassett's argument.
"Is this supposed to be a brag?" Pocan asked.
Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and current co-host of Pod Save America, found Hassett's messaging so tone-deaf that "we must consider the possibility that Kevin Hassett is secretly working for the Democrats."
The Democratic House Majority Political Action Committee had a response similar to Favreau's, recommending that the GOP make Hassett "the spokesperson for the entire Republican Party."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Actually Illegal': DeSantis Unveils Unconstitutionally Rigged Congressional Map
"Republicans lost a HUGE special election in Florida and now they're determined to CHEAT in the November election by rigging the maps in a back room deal," said one observer.
Apr 27, 2026
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday unveiled his plan to unconstitutionally gerrymander the Sunshine State's congressional map amid pressure from the Trump administration, a move GOP officials hope will help their party retain control of both houses of Congress after November's midterm elections.
DeSantis handed state lawmakers a proposed map that would dramatically redraw the districts of several House incumbents, giving legislators less than 24 hours to review the redistricting plan ahead of a special session on Tuesday during which the Republican-controlled Legislature is expected to approve the gerrymandering.
Republicans currently hold 20 of Florida's 28 US House seats. The new map is projected to increase that number to 24. Four Democrat-held seats will be most affected, with Reps. Kathy Castor, Lois Frankel, Darren Soto, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz facing markedly different maps and Rep. Jared Moskowitz in a new district.
🚨Florida voters are being denied any say on the new electoral maps. Ron DeSantis knows they won’t go for it, which is why he’s bypassing them — just like they did in Texas. This is actually ILLEGAL. In California and Virginia, voters got to decide.#StopIllegalFloridaMaps
[image or embed]
— Jon Cooper (@joncooper-us.bsky.social) April 27, 2026 at 12:19 PM
However, the mid-decade partisan redistricting is expressly illegal under Florida's Constitution, which states in Section 20 of Article II that “no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.”
While Republicans claim the new maps are racially neutral, state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-42) called that assertion "obvious horseshit."
"The map goes out of its way to split up the growing Puerto Rican population in Central Florida between multiple districts. It's racial cracking at a textbook level," she said, referring to the practice of drawing maps so that minority communities are spread across multiple districts, depriving them of the opportunity to form effective voting blocs.
Republicans lost a HUGE special election in Florida and now they're determined to CHEAT in the November election by rigging the maps in a back room deal. Florida voters banned partisan political maps 15 years ago.DO NOT STANDBY AND LET THEM.#StopIllegalFloridaMaps
— Grant Stern (@grantstern.bsky.social) April 27, 2026 at 1:38 PM
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) warned last week that Florida's move could backfire.
"If Florida Republicans proceed with this illegal scheme, they will only create more prime pick-up opportunities for Democrats," Jeffries said. "We are prepared to take them all on, and we are prepared to win.”
National and state Democrats are already vowing legal challenges to Florida's plan.
“If DeSantis forces this unconstitutional gerrymander forward in Florida, it won’t be because the voters asked him to,” National Democratic Redistricting Committee president John Bisognano said Monday. "Republicans will only have themselves to blame when they face resistance in the courtroom and at the ballot box for this egregious power grab.”
"Poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Floridian voters do not want a mid-decade gerrymander," Bisognano added. "They aren’t alone. Local editorial boards across the state are slamming this blatantly partisan power grab."
The gerrymandering war kicked off last year when, under pressure from President Donald Trump, the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature redrew the state's congressional map in a bid to eliminate all Democratic districts. The right-wing US Supreme Court gave Texas its blessing to use the rigged map in a ruling last December.
Texas' move was countered last November when California voters approved redrawn districts favoring Democrats.
Since then, Republican-controlled legislatures in states including Missouri and North Carolina and Democratic-controlled states like Virginia, Maryland, and Washington have redrawn or are in the process of redrawing their congressional maps.
Last week, a district court judge subsequently blocked Virginia's new map a day after it was approved, setting up a battle in the state Supreme Court.
Responding to last week's voter-approved redistricting in Virginia, former US Attorney General Eric Holder noted major differences between the bottom-up redraws in Democratic states and top-down rigging by Republicans.
“The mere existence of this special election stands in stark contrast to the gerrymanders forced on constituents in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina and shows that voters are tired of Republican attempts to silence their power at the voting booth," Holder said.
All Voting Is Local Action Florida state director Brad Ashwell said in a statement Monday that "it is clear that the end goal in this state is to redraw maps in order to give one party an advantage over another, essentially putting partisan politics over the voters."
"What’s even more egregious is that this move is in direct conflict with the fair districts ballot amendments these same voters approved by a supermajority in 2010, meaning our governor and lawmakers are directly undermining our state Constitution and the will of the voters," he continued.
“This move is unnecessary, illegal, and a power grab, and it takes away time from addressing real issues, like passing a state budget, which hasn’t happened yet," Ashwell said. "Additionally, passing and implementing a new map will create new precincts right before the election, causing voter confusion and unnecessary work for local election officials who are already bogged down by frequent policy changes and new hurdles."
"For once, Florida should stand by its voters and election officials and shut this undemocratic move down," he added. "No new maps!”'
This isn't Desantis' first foray into gerrymandering. A state judge in 2022 invalidated parts of a previously redrawn congressional map, siding with plaintiffs in a lawsuit who argued that Republicans violated the state Constitution by racially rigging districts. However, in 2024 a federal appellate panel ruled that Florida could proceed with use of the map.
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-Iran Truce Frays, Dem Leaders Pursue Yet Another Round of War Powers Votes
"A two-week ceasefire is insufficient," argued House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. "We need a permanent end to Donald Trump’s reckless war of choice."
Apr 08, 2026
After accusations of cowardly delays, Democratic leaders in the US Congress moved Wednesday toward a vote on yet another war powers resolution aimed at stopping President Donald Trump from waging more unauthorized war on Iran as the tenuous day-old Mideast ceasefire unravels.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced Wednesday that Democrats will force a vote on a war powers resolution when upper chamber lawmakers reconvene next week.
"Congress must reassert its authority, especially at this dangerous moment," Schumer said during a press conference at his New York office. "No president, Democrat or Republican, should take this country to war alone. Not now. Not ever."
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) reiterated remarks made during a Tuesday evening interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, in which he said he's demanding House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "immediately reconvene the House back into session" so lawmakers can vote on the war powers resolution.
"A two-week ceasefire is insufficient," Jeffries said. "We need a permanent end to Donald Trump’s reckless war of choice."
"Assuming it doesn’t happen this week, we’ll go back into session next week and we will present a war powers resolution as soon as it becomes available to us to do so as a matter of privilege on the House floor," he continued. "All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us."
"The American people strongly oppose this reckless war of choice and know that we should not be spending billions of dollars to drop bombs in Iran while Republicans and Donald Trump are unwilling to spend a dime to actually make life more affordable for the American people," Jeffries added.
The GOP-controlled House and Senate have rejected attempts to pass war powers resolutions, with Johnson denying that the US is even at war—a dubious argument used in as far back as the Korean War in order to skirt the constitutional requirement for congressional assent.
Jeffries also announced Wednesday that House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has scheduled a Friday meeting online regarding “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment," which allows for the dismissal of a president who is incapacitated, unable, or unwilling to perform their duties.
More than 80 Democratic lawmakers are urging members of Trump's Cabinet to invoke the measure and remove him from office for his genocidal threats against Iran.
Schumer's announcement came on the heels of a day that began with Trump's genocidal threat to wipe out Iran's civilization and ended with an agreement for the US and Israel to grant broad concessions to Tehran—including a two-week pause in hostilities—in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
“All of this happens when one man, especially a man acting as unhinged as Donald Trump, has unchecked power to wage war,” Schumer said. “He backs himself into a corner with dangerous, escalating rhetoric.”
“The entire world holds its breath, wondering what's next going to come out of his mouth,” Schumer said of Trump. “And can he ever find a way out? A commander-in-chief who is truly in control would never have gotten into this colossal mess to begin with.”
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to pass an Iran war powers resolution, including a bipartisan House effort led by Reps. Ko Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and another spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the upper chamber. A handful of House Republicans supported the Khanna-Massie resolution, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke ranks to vote against the Kaine-Paul measure.
“Republicans will once again have the opportunity to join Democrats and end this reckless war of choice," Schumer added. "The public must demand that Republicans join with us to approve the War Powers Act."
The renewed push for a war powers vote comes as the shaky Iran ceasefire is being heavily tested both by Israel's devastating attacks on Lebanon—which have reportedly killed or wounded more than 1,300 people over the past 24 hours—and Iran's refusal to allow ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Schumer said Wednesday that “this is one of the very worst military and foreign policy actions that the United States has ever taken."
“The war made us worse in terms of control of the Strait of Hormuz,” he argued, alluding to the ceasefire provision allowing Iranian control over the vital waterway and a $2 million-per-ship toll. "The war made us worse in terms of the strength of the Iranian regime. The war made us worse in terms of high gas prices... And the war made us worse because American credibility is down the drain.”
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration toward the end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The law empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority by requiring the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also mandates that lawmakers approve any troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days.
In addition to Iran, members of Congress have tried—and failed—to pass multiple war powers resolutions limiting Trump's attacks on Venezuela, whose president was kidnapped during a brief US invasion in January.
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
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