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
'This Man Is So Out of Touch': Hakeem Jeffries Slammed for Opposition to Medicare for All
"Does Jeffries even pay attention to the overwhelming support of the Democratic Party base?" asked one labor movement veteran, citing a new poll showing 90% of the party want lawmakers to focus on passing universal healthcare.
Aug 17, 2026
Democratic House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York sparked fresh outrage Sunday by saying he does not currently support Medicare for All legislation in Congress, a damning admission at a time when party voters—clamoring for bolder positions from leadership and a willingness to fight for the working class—are overwhelming in favor of proposals that would provide universal healthcare coverage for every person in the United States at a lower cost than the current system.
Appearing on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Jeffries was asked by host Kristen Welker—who noted his previous backing of such proposals from 2013 to 2021—if he would put Medicare for All legislation in the House up for a vote if Democrat's win back the majority in November, Jeffries first tried to dodge the question by putting his focus on the shortcomings of the Republicans, who gutted have Medicaid and attacked Affordable Healthcare Act subsidies during President Donald Trump's second term.
But pressed by Welker if he "personally" supports Medicare for All at this time, Jeffries said, "No," explaining that "it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support."
WELKER: As Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
JEFFRIES: It's not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support, but I support the notion we've got to find a path forward to fix our broken healthcare system pic.twitter.com/U8UZ4TqSZQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 16, 2026
The remarks were hardly surprising, but landed hard for critics, who quickly pointed out that a new CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday showed—as survey after survey has also documented—that hunger for Medicare for All among Democratic voters is remarkably high.
As Common Dreams reported last week, a recent Yale University study found that Medicare for All, as drafted in a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would save over 114,000 lives annually and $1 trillion per year in US healthcare spending.
In the poll, conducted between Aug. 12-14, a full 90% of Democratic voters said they would "like to see the Democratic Party focus on plans for passing Medicare for All," compared to just 10% who said it should not be a focus.
"A reminder that the vast majority of Democrats across the country support Medicare for All," said progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan in response to Jeffries' answer on the question. "This man is so out of touch with his party. How is he their leader?"
The Lever's David Sirota also issued a rebuke, explaining that Jeffries' comments, juxtaposed with the CBS/YouGov poll, show exactly "why Democratic voters are so enraged."
Also notable from the poll were responses to two questions that preceded the question about the specific policies Democrats should focus on.
Asked if it was more important for the Democratic Party to "show they are fighting for people" or that "they have detailed policies," 83% said it was more important for Democrats to show they are fighting, while just 17% said detailed policies were more important. Similarly, when it came to economic issues, voters—by a 68% to 29% margin—said they'd prefer "big or fundamental changes in policies and approach, even if they are harder to do" compared to those who wanted "smaller or incremental changes to policies and approach, that might be easier to do."
Appearing after Jeffries on "Meet the Press," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a top ally of Sanders and a current co-sponsor of the Medicare for All Bill introduced earlier this year in the House, disagreed with the Minority Leader's position.
"Medicare for All is arguably the most important priority," Khanna said. "It would save money, and it would save lives. Look, there was just a Yale study that came out. It would save $1 trillion in terms of costs, in terms of health care."
Asked by Welker if he was "disappointed" in Jeffries' remarks, Khanna said that while "I respect the difference" of opinion, "I will say this: it needs to have a vote on the House floor."
"The majority of the House Democrats are going to support it," he continued. "It is one of the most important policies if you actually believe in saving lives and in helping increase wages for working-class Americans. You talk to folks, and they’ll say, 'The biggest thing that pushes me into bankruptcy is if someone gets cancer. And I can’t afford the bills.' And even people who have insurance, look at how many premiums have been increasing. This would save money for ordinary Americans. And it would increase their wages. It’s the single biggest roadblock in our economic system hurting working families."
In a social media post on Sunday, Sanders—while not mentioning the latest comments by Jeffries—said, "Our current healthcare system is broken. Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
Our current healthcare system is broken.
Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All. They’re right. Let’s do it. pic.twitter.com/NFwOUk0QKB
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 16, 2026
"A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All," added Sanders. "They’re right. Let’s do it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corrupt Trump Makes $1.1 Million an Hour by Grifting the American People
Democratic leaders should make it very clear that the president is unfairly profiting from his position and hold shadow hearings detailing how he has done it.
Aug 15, 2026
To House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—Your responses on July 1, 2026 on the reporting of the $2.2 billion profit personally reaped by President Donald Trump, while allegedly a public servant in 2025, was not specific enough.
Jeffries (NY) wrote on his social media account: “Donald Trump made more than $2 billion during his first year as President. Republicans are enriching themselves while making your life more expensive. We must crush the culture of corruption.”
Schumer (NY) wrote on his: “$2.2 BILLION for the Trump family. Higher costs for the American people.”
You should have described his huge loot as $1.1 million an hour. That’s right, $1.1 million an hour based on a 40-hour work week over one year. (And remember, Trump spends a lot of his time on his vengeance missions, his golf game, and napping—so a 40-hour work week is a generous estimate.)
You can ask for widespread feedback from the American people and make it part of his widely discernible profiteering persona of greed and lawless power.
You should have then compared that enormous sum per hour with the Trump-GOP supported federal minimum wage, frozen at $7.25 per hour. This would have given you the perfect occasion to highlight the case for a much higher federal minimum wage, helping tens of millions of American workers.
You also omitted his unlawful agreement with the Internal Revenue Service to give him a free ride on tax abuses.
Such profiteering from his public office at $1.1 million an hour is staggering, especially when you detail where it came from. This would have resonated with a huge portion of the voting public, including Republicans. Instead, Democrats lost the opportunity to make that stunningly understandable communication. But it is not too late to revive and make more concrete his boastful misuse of the office of the presidency. You can compare it with past presidents’ sense of self restraint. You can ask for widespread feedback from the American people and make it part of his widely discernible profiteering persona of greed and lawless power.
One further response to this mountain of greed by Donald Trump should be joint shadow hearings between the House and Senate Democrats during this August recess. This would bring this appalling engagement by Trump in his various investment arrangements to a wider audience and highlight recommendations of reforms to prevent such massive and dubious self-enrichment by a president of the United States. There will be many competent legal and other experts to testify at your hearings, which no doubt will reveal more information and reach a large audience during the August recess.
These hearings would provide the Capitol press corps with much needed information to fulfill their professional responsibility to provide the people with their right to know the fuller details of what has yet not been reported.
Another way to put it is, you don’t make $1.1 million an hour by pushing a button. There is a lot of personal hidden back-and-forths by many people and many conflicts of interest to make that rich haul a reality.
Contact your Democratic members of Congress and demand shadow hearings. Ask for their written response. Do your part to help make it happen. The Congressional Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Hakeem Jeffries and J Street Teamed Up for Arming Genocide
There are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state of Israel.
Jul 27, 2026
When House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent out a recent “dear colleague” letter, its second sentence cited “the position articulated by… pro-peace organizations like J Street.” The congressman and J Street were opposing an amendment to block $3.3 billion in military shipments and other aid to Israel.
Jeffries (NY) contended that the measure was “overly broad.” On the same day, using the same phrase “overly broad,” J Street issued a statement declaring that “we support Leader Jeffries’ decision to oppose the amendment.”
Both Jeffries and J Street respectfully noted that many members of Congress had understandable reasons to back the measure. The next day, July 15, a record 103 Democrats voted in favor of blocking weaponry to Israel.
While attempting to prevent a high number of yes votes, Jeffries and J Street had emphasized mutual agreement to validate a position that amounted to support for arming genocide.
After the House vote, J Street said that “we welcome House Democratic leadership taking a stronger stance on using US leverage to pressure the Israeli government to change course.” But there are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state of Israel.
Last month, a United Nations commission concluded that genocide is continuing, as Israeli forces intentionally target children in Gaza. “A significant body of research by legal and rights experts has concluded that Israel is intent on destroying Palestinians, including analyses by UN investigators, rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and genocide scholars worldwide,” The Guardian reported this summer.
Jeffries, a seven-term representative from New York City, has received upwards of $1.7 million from pro-Israel donors. He is now third from the top of such recipients among the thousands of House members since 1990.
During the 34 months since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, J Street has evolved from unequivocally supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza to fervently criticizing them and calling for an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. Yet the organization has never responded adequately in ways commensurate with the actual horrific events.
Early last year, while writing an article for The Nation, I researched J Street’s public statements ever since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza. I found that “none of J Street’s 132 news releases between October 7 [2023] and the start of the [temporary] ceasefire in late January 2025 called for an end to shipments of the US bombs and weapons that were killing those civilians while enforcing Israel’s policy of using starvation as a weapon of war.”
Throughout the 16-month period, as I pointed out: “J Street news releases echoed pronouncements coming from the White House and State Department, becoming grim parodies of wishful thinking and empty warnings. The headlines of J Street releases were largely contoured around hollow claims from the Biden administration that it was diligently striving to end the death and agony in Gaza.”
Only gradually has J Street expressed support for—minimally—curbing US military aid to Israel. Meanwhile, as has been the case since J Street’s founding nearly 20 years ago, many members of Congress have hidden behind J Street to legitimize their support for Israel, while often repeating the expedient “two-state solution” fantasy.
Describing itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy,” J Street has long been widely seen as a liberal Jewish-led alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s right-wing politics. But J Street’s record shows that it has gone out of its way to trumpet denial.
On January 16, 2024, the organization put out a news release with this headline: “J Street Rejects Allegation at International Court of Justice of Genocide in War Against Hamas in Gaza.” Four months later, another J Street news release was equally emphatic, making clear that “J Street continues to reject the allegation of genocide in this case.”
In December 2024, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports unequivocally stating that Israel was engaged in genocide.
At last, in August 2025, J Street’s president and driving force since its founding, Jeremy Ben-Ami, finally acknowledged the reality of Israeli genocide. “Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide,” he wrote in a blog post. “I have, however, been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention.”
J Street’s leader wrote those words a year ago. Yet he and his organization just teamed up with Hakeem Jeffries in support of continuing massive arms shipments to the genocidal Israeli government.
And so continues the convenient evasion with the absurd motto “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rep. Jeffries' Actions Would Earn the Praise of Trump, Not the US People
By opposing impeachment, the Democratic House leader has acted in the interests of the corrupt US president and not the majority of his party's voters.
Jul 27, 2026
“Leader Jeffries, President Trump is calling.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): “Hello, Mr. President, this is a rare occasion!”
Donald Trump: “Well, Hakeem, I want to have a confidential talk with you on a secure line. Agreed?”
HJ: “Sure, since you made the call.”
DT: “By the way, Hakeem, my Saudi friends tell me that your first name in Arabic means ‘wise.’”
HJ: “I try not to dwell on that, Mr. President.”
DT: “Funny! Here is why I am calling. To thank you for opposing Impeachment. You’ve shown amazing political courage by standing up to the vast majority of Democratic voters who want to impeach me, remove me, and more from my beautifully renovated White House (Trump House, as we call it in our inner circle). The people are screaming at your Democrats in local town meetings because, as you know, the Dems aren’t pushing for impeachment.”
DT: “Even more so, are the real guts you have in shutting down your House Democrats shouting for Impeachment now, especially after my remarks about destroying Iran’s 5,000 years of civilization in April. You also blocked them from signing on to Rep. John Larson’s (D-Conn.) treasonous Articles of Impeachment and shut him up as well. TREMENDOUS exercise of power, Hakeem! You’ve freed yourself from Crazy Nancy, who impeached me twice. I admire that and wanted to tell you that directly.”
HJ: “As you say, Mr. President,” (noncommittedly.)
DT: “Hakeem, I wouldn’t say this publicly, but it looks like you will be Speaker in January and by a comfortable margin. So, we’re going to have to DEAL with each other, right?”
“I assume so,” replied Jeffries, wondering what comes next.
DT: “Not on the big issues, like strong support for Israel and a big military budget. I like what you said a while back that Israel could be the Sixth Borough of New York. And you have happily accepted tons of dough from the AIPAC PACs, as we have.”
DT: “Over the years, you’ve backed bigger military budgets to keep our country strong and NO. 1! Keep doing that, and I’ll go along with a tough audit of the Pentagon budget, which I’m told will take four years… I’m also OK with restoring the cuts to Medicaid, food and energy assistance, and filling the empty seats in the regulatory agencies with the required number of Democrats OK'd by you.”
DT: “Plus, as Ronald Reagan did, I’ll propose a task force to come to a bipartisan agreement to shore up Social Security for our elderly. And Melania wants me to say that I’ll join you with a real child tax credit for 60 million kids.”
HJ: “Sounds good, Mr. President. Can you get your GOP up here to go along?”
DT: “I’ll take care of them. With Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), we’ll keep them in line. As you say to your rebellious Dems, where are they going to go?”
DT: “By now, you’re probably wondering what I want in return to make it a Deal? I want you to stay with your opposition to any drive to Impeach. Explain it how you will—‘too distracting, too divisive, don’t have the two-thirds vote in the Senate, the people’s business is your priority, whatever.’ As you know, the Impeachment articles would bring up the Epstein smears, the so-called ‘Kitchen Table’ issues, and alleged non-enforcement of the laws. Also, the tax stuff with the IRS, the necessary spending directly by me for our great military actions abroad, and so on. I got matters pretty much under control with the backing of six Supreme Court justices, my veto, and pardon powers. What I can’t control, without drastic actions, is the impeachment power in Congress that is final and can’t be sent to the Supreme Court. I’m being very frank, here, Hakeem. And you know the ways I can fight back.”
DT: “Also, I don’t want you to oppose funding my beautiful White House ballroom and the greatest Arch in the world. Pretty modest requests, wouldn’t you agree, Hakeem?”
“It is too hypothetical for any response,” said Hakeem. “While I believe in compromise for the ‘greater good’ to be achieved, we have to wait until after November. Besides, as you falsely say about us, you are really trying every day to steal the elections. We also don’t know how pliable the incumbent Republicans will be to your demands. Many may blame you for their losses. I must stress that any understanding we arrive at has to be open and subject to consultation with our leadership.”
DT: “I’m not surprised by what you just said. Still, I think this exchange was worthwhile as a preview of any deal. Before closing—have my buddy Mike Johnson calling on the line again—I got to praise you for shutting down Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-Md.) toying with an ugly rogue hearing on impeachment by the Dems on the Judiciary Committee. That would have set me off BIG TIME! Unlike Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Raskin gets so much fawning press that it’s hard to attack him without the fake news media going bananas.”
DT: “I guess you just told him: ‘Raskin, either you’re part of the leadership or you’re on your own—NO IMPEACHMENT HEARING, you understand.’ And he took it, he took it. Great job, I must say.”
HJ: “No comment Mr. President. Thanks for your call. God Save America.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Will It Take for the Dems to Impeach Outlaw Trump?
Trump still has something to teach his feeble Democratic opponents: He will never give up.
Jul 20, 2026
The chronic prevaricator and delusionist, President Donald J. Trump, knows the worse his outlaw actions and mouth are, the less likely the Democrats in Congress are to impeach him.
The Democratic leaders, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), like Trump, oppose impeachment drives but for different reasons. With Trump the coming weeks are only going to get much worse, domestically and abroad!
Let us recall that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her Democrats impeached Trump in 2019, over the Hunter Biden-Ukraine deal demanded by Trump, and in 2020 over the January 6th insurrection and attack on Congress. Both Senate impeachment trials failed to get the two-thirds vote required to convict Trump.
Why aren’t the Democrats demanding impeachment back home, where some 60% of the people favor this “You’re Fired” remedy, including 84% of Democratic voters? In a poll taken a few months ago, 59% of the people agreed with the designation of Trump as “a dangerous dictator.” Why has Hakeem Jeffries opposed House Democrats, almost all of whom favor impeachment in principle, signing on to veteran, centrist Congressman John Larson’s (D-Conn.) H.Res.1155 Articles of Impeachment?
Trump has mastered pushing expectation levels to their lowest depths in American history.
Capitol Hill reporters should ask that question why the Democratic leaders are dragging their feet on impeachment. Maybe it is because the GOP could claim that prior Democratic presidents have committed impeachable offenses. But the counterclaim is that no president in history has committed such egregious offenses, daily, doubling down when challenged. Trump brags about his outlawry, his mantra being “doing whatever I want,” aided by the US Supreme Court’s six Injustices (see Trump v. United States 2024).
The Democratic leadership says, “We don’t have the votes” in a GOP Congress. But to get the votes, you have to mount a relentless drive. Impeachment efforts around the country have collateral benefits, such as giving a demanding, angry electorate an answer to their question: What does the Democratic Party stand for? Impeachment is a mobilizer for get-out-the-vote efforts, for educating and energizing the people back home who want fighters for them in Washington, DC, not pussycats among the Republican carnivores. That’s why bold under-funded progressive primary candidates are starting to win against entrenched Democrats.
Compare the GOP to the Democrats. Republicans, in the minority when the Democrats controlled the House, took their repeal of Obamacare to the House floor over 60 times and lost. Still, they made their point, again and again, until they won the House and, with Trump, moved to make using Obamacare and Medicaid more difficult. As the great workers’ champion, Eugene Debs said, you have to endure losing and losing until you win.
Another explanation for the Jeffries-Schumer crowd is that pushing impeachment creates conflicts and turmoil that goes contrary to their top-down control discipline. They have their narrow and often flawed strategies to win elections, without alienating Wall Street. They also don’t want other variables to rock the boat, including an Impeachment article that raises their complicity with the Netanyahu genocide in Gaza-Palestine and the war against Iran.
When asked about Impeachment, Jeffries replied, “I don’t want to get ahead of that discussion.” What? The mega arsonist is burning down our Republic and the Constitution for which it stands every day, with tens of millions of Americans suffering and endangered, and their political leaders are saying, “Now is not the Time,” contradicting the wishes of the vast majority of their voters.
It is not just the lack of basic political fortitude and self-respect by the Democrats. In recent years, before and including Trump, before and including Elon Musk and his criminal DOGE rampages, there has been a destruction of basic norms and public levels of expectations by people vis-à-vis their political and corporate dominators. Lowering public expectation levels amounts to a get-out-of-jail pass.
Trump has mastered pushing expectation levels to their lowest depths in American history. He can lie, cheat, defame, corrupt, and wreck everything he feels challenges his egomaniacal-driven greed, arrogance, and lust for illegal power and ignorance. Trump’s polls remain in the mid-30s amid all the fake promises and current lies he peddles about his non-existent Golden Age for America, with its booming economy. He even claims falsely that nations are falling all over themselves to invest trillions of dollars in America. (See “Medical Concerns About Donald J. Trump and His Fitness For Office” in the April 30, 2026 Congressional Record.)
In the past, Americans had higher expectations for government officials. For example, Sherman Adams, chief of staff to President Dwight Eisenhower, had to resign in 1958 after accepting a vicuna coat from a textile industry friend who was facing federal regulatory investigations, even though there was no quid pro quo for the gift.
Or in 1987, Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) had to suspend his presidential campaign because of accusations of womanizing. A picture of Hart, a married man, with a young woman sitting on his lap on a yacht raised a furor. In 2016 and 2024, Trump, the worst, most boastful sexual predator in American political history, went to the White House as president.
Ronald Reagan, a grade B actor, broke new ground when he became California’s governor and then president with a winning smile and optimistic, patriotic rhetoric that so diminished people’s expectation levels about what they needed and wanted from an American president.
So low were their expectations, including those of the media, of Reagan’s intelligence and knowledge that he became expert at obliging them. Mark Green, in his great book Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error, gives many examples of Reagan’s ignorant statements, words, and jokes that would have sunk previous politicians’ prospects. (See: https://nader.org/1983/12/02/ronald-reagan-reign-of-error/) Reagan dismissed criticism of his polices or actions with a laugh inducing people to say, “There he goes again.”
It all comes down to the civic self-respect, knowledge, and engagement of the citizenry, starting with civic history and skill courses untaught in schools, with parents being circumvented by harmful direct corporate advertisements to their children, now addicted to over five hours a day on their iPhones and similar environments for growing up powerless.
There is a glimmer of hope. Tyrants and fascist dictators always overplay their hand. In Trump’s 26-minute televised speech on July 16, 2026, he showed how desperate and depraved he is. Trump wants to usurp state control of our approaching elections. This time, he didn’t begin to fool the media, so off the wall were his fabrications and phony accusations.
Typical is the Wall Street Journal’s summary of his ravings: “ [T]rump didn’t provide any evidence of voter fraud, prove that people had cast ballots in the US who shouldn’t have, or reveal that election outcomes had been altered because of interference.”
The Fuhrer in the White House, who said in January there should not be any elections in November, may have met his comeuppance. Even his core MAGA crowd is shrinking, according to polls.
But Trump still has something to teach his feeble Democratic opponents. He will never give up his many nefarious plans to disrupt the elections with his false claims and his possible invocation of the Insurrection Act to seize the states’ election data and machinery.
Voting in the upcoming election is a right and a duty. The consequences of not using your vote to send dictator Trump and his Republicans enablers the message that our democracy and the rule of law will not be subjugated by a dictator and his criminal gang.
(For more information on our civically-led Impeachment Symposium on Capitol Hill on July 22 see Nader.org/Impeachment.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy