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
Tyrant Trump Is Lucky in the Cowardice of His Enemies
Democratic leadership's refusal to pursue impeachment signals to Trump that he has two-plus unchallenged years to ravage the lives and livelihoods of millions of people here and abroad.
Sep 05, 2026
What must Tyrant Trump be thinking about his opponents’ feeble, weak, cowardly responses to his daily torrent of serious, impeachable offenses? Even his egomaniacal narcissism cannot fully explain his amazing good luck.
Start with the House’s two impeachments of Donald Trump, while Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was Speaker, in 2019 and 2021. The first was over Trump’s trying to bribe or extort Ukraine into going after Hunter Biden—an investor and Board member of a Ukrainian business. Pelosi knew there was no chance of getting the required two-thirds vote required for Senate conviction, but went for the House vote anyway. At the same time, Pelosi declined to pursue numerous other "slam dunk" kitchen table impeachable offenses we and others presented to her. (See Congressional Record, December 18, 2019).
In 2021, after the January 6 Trump-incited violent insurrection involving attack on the Capitol and Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, Pelosi did the same thing: impeached Trump in the House. Unfortunately, the Senate fell short of the two-thirds vote required to convict and remove him from office because most Senate Republicans cowardly failed to hold Trump accountable for these treacherous actions.
Come the Second Trump term, after criminal indictments, a felony conviction, and civil litigation brought by women accusing him of sexual misconduct, on Day One, January 20, 2025, Trump began issuing illegal executive orders. Many of them were impeachable offenses as he boastfully implemented them, with the aid of Elon Musk’s criminal enterprise—DOGE.
Trump continues to commit “high crimes and misdemeanors,” brazenly, taunting the so-called leaders of the Democrats by saying, “This is just the beginning."
Trump probably anticipated a much more vigorous impeachment drive by the Democrats, even though they were in the minority in the House. His luck continued. The Democratic Party’s so-called leadership decided against this excellent galvanizing get-out-the-vote initiative for their voters, 90% of whom wanted Impeachment yesterday. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ (D-Calif.) staffers told inquirers that they didn’t know how it would play out.
Jeffries himself told a reporter that “he didn’t want to get ahead of that discussion.” What? Ahead of 90% of his party’s voters!!?
Trump, who called for the execution of six Congressional Democrats for reminding soldiers of their obligation not to obey an illegal order that is contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the United States (as in described in the Army Manual for Courts-Martial [MCM] along with international law) must be privately dumbfounded. The more violently extreme and erratic he gets, the less interested the Democratic Party is in an Impeachment Drive. (See “Statement from Medical Professionals” in the April 30, 2026 Congressional Record.)
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) introduced H. Res. 537 on June 24, 2025. It was treated as a privileged impeachment resolution and Rep. Al Green took to the floor for debate and a prompt vote to educate the public about the necessity of ordering Trump, “You’re Fired.” Jeffries and his cohorts opposed it! Trump must have been stunned.
After all, people and their children are feeling, seeing, and hurting in the tens of millions from Trump’s wrecking, endangering, and weakening America. (See my column last week, “Open Letter to Representative Hakeem Jeffries.”)
Under the Jeffries and Schumer anti-impeachment bans, thus agreeing with Trump, the news media has little activity to cover in Washington, DC. Also, it’s not keeping up with the civic activity around the country demanding Impeachment. (See nader.org/impeachment.)
More puzzling is the refusal of editorial writers to urge impeachment. They regularly make the Impeachment case against Trump but decline to tell their readers the obvious conclusion: that the House should begin an impeachment inquiry and approve articles of impeachment. Congress also has an important role under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Congress, by statute, may appoint itself—in lieu of the principal officers of the Executive Branch—to determine whether the president is disabled and should be temporarily removed until the disability lapses.
Despite the many detailed editorials in The New York Times, such as one showing how Trump is harming the health of the American people and another “Autocracy Index” titled “Trump’s Election Meddling Erodes Our Democracy,” the editorial writers limped off their pages without answering the alarmed readers’ question, “What do you want done about this?”
The Times Sunday columnist Jamelle Bouie relentlessly documents Trump’s impeachable crimes, but not once has he moved to recommend this Republic-saving mechanism given to us by our Founding Fathers. Same for other Times columnists, Michelle Goldberg and EJ Dionne.
The Times’ reluctance to employ the “I” word is typical of the mass media. What about the independent progressive media? The Nation, In These Times, Progressive Magazine, and The Washington Monthly have all mentioned impeachment, but few have made a sustained, prominent editorial demand for an impeachment drive. Also, they do not report on the rising citizen activities behind Impeachment around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to commit “high crimes and misdemeanors,” brazenly, taunting the so-called leaders of the Democrats by saying, “This is just the beginning.” He provides the Democrats with daily evidence that should prompt SHADOW CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS organized by Democratic members of Congress and designed to build a public factual record. Such hearings could attract substantial media attention, particularly if they focused on specific alleged abuses and featured affected witnesses, legal experts, and former public officials. Nonetheless, Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) block any shadow hearings by dissenting House members.
What explains this historic cowardice? Is it fear of Trump retaliating? Is it smugness over Trump’s low polls, and a belief they can win in November by lying low, raising AIPAC and corporate campaign money, mumbling about affordability, and avoiding heavily poll-favored Pledges or Contracts for the American people showing specifically what they stand for? (See, Compact for American Workers and Robert Reich’s 10-Point Plan To Make America Affordable.) Or is it just trying to avoid Trump accusing the Democrats of having done similar things when they controlled the White House, such as starting or backing unconstitutional wars?
Whatever explains their inhibitions, the result is to signal to Trump that he has two-plus unchallenged years to ravage the lives and livelihoods of millions of people here and abroad, oppose preparedness for climate and pandemic catastrophes, to suppress renewable energy and favor omnicidal fossil-fuel combustion, invade our cities with his stormtroopers, and treat children with unsurpassed cruelty. It also leaves unanswered serious questions about his personal financial enrichment while in office—estimated to be $1.1 million per working hour. All this invites the demand that they resign. The people need fresh, stand-up leaders to take over the Democratic leadership and its party committees. (See RootsAction: “Tell Democrats in Congress to Insist That Schumer and Jeffries Step Aside”.)
The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Answer Me This, Hakeem Jeffries: What Do Democrats Stand For?
Twice Democrats lost to the corrupt, chronically lying, corporatist, and failed gambling czar Donald Trump when you should have defeated him and his GOP handily. It is time for serious introspection, a change of attitude, and tactics.
Sep 01, 2026
August 31, 2026
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries
U.S. House of Representatives
2267 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Rep. Jeffries,
Like other civic advocates, I read the New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles about your private meeting with Jared Kushner, Trump’s amateur Ambassador at Large, who is also furiously seeking investment opportunities while abroad. It is not difficult to read between the lines. You’re seeking a deal, should you be chosen as House Speaker in January. Trump also wants a deal as—you will hold off any Impeachment initiative, and in exchange, he will not oppose some undefined bills that you want to pass.
You can rebut this supposition by announcing very soon that you will seek to impeach Trump once the Democrats take over the House. About 90% of Democratic voters and two-thirds of independent voters want “Impeachment Now” (see Celinda Lake’s polls.) This is what the Bar of the City of New York urgently concluded, following two detailed reports on Trump’s executive violations of law in December and March. (See “The Abuse of Presidential Power and Breach of Public Trust” and “The Crisis Deepens: Congress Must Act Now to Address Escalating Abuses of Executive Power”.)
When asked about your stand on Impeachment in April by a reporter, you replied: “I don’t want to get ahead of that discussion.” What? Don’t want to get ahead of 90% of Democratic voters? Don’t want to move to fire an outlaw, corrupt, violent, raving racist, and serial sexual abuser of women? A dangerously unstable dictator (see April 30, 2026 Congressional Record) who is wrecking, endangering, and weakening America, making life more unaffordable for tens of millions of lower-income Americans and their children, many of whom are losing their Medicaid, food stamps, and health and safety protections? You are signaling that Trump has two more unchallenged years to destroy our Republic and the Constitution for which it stands. Adamant in drafting our Constitution to block any “monarchs,” what would our Founding Fathers have done?
Observers of your brand of politics know your game, Mr. Jeffries. Nonetheless, some weeks ago, your Executive Director Gideon Bragin told a respected intermediary that he was okay with receiving my suggestions for landsliding the GOP. You were sent a few pages, which your office received, but did not even courteously acknowledge, much less respond substantially. This is typical of the Democratic leadership’s incommunicado attitude toward independent citizen groups. (See the report The Incommunicados.)
Being control freaks, the Democratic leadership does not like “mandates.” Which is why they do not like popular Pledges, Compacts, or Contracts for the American People or for American Workers. When former Secretary of Labor, bestselling author, and popular podcaster Robert Reich sent his Party’s leaders a list of “What Democrats Must Pledge to America,” in December 2025, he probably expected a response. To date, not a single response from anyone in the so-called leadership of the Party. Many of his proposals are New Deal updates that test well with liberals and many conservative families where they live, work, and raise their families. NO RESPONSE!
We know the game, Mr. Jeffries. But in these times and with some stunning primary elections, it is a game that won’t be as easily played with impunity as in previous years under Speaker Pelosi. You may wish to refine your political antennae and answer the question most asked by voters, which is, “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” other than scapegoating when it loses to the most cruel, corrupt, anti-worker, corporatist GOP in history.
Having huddled with the genocide-backer Kushner, how can you continue not to meet with National citizen groups like Public Citizen, Common Cause, People for the American Way, Pension Rights Center, and others familiar to you as long-time advocates for policies that the past Democratic Party used to find commendable and support on Capitol Hill? No more excluding them, despite what your corporate-conflicted consultants advise. Also, no more of your silencing House Democrats from even talking about Impeachment. Under Rule 9, there will be a vote on an impeachment resolution after Labor Day, which you should support and NOT join Trump in opposing. (See Rep. John Larson’s H.Res 1155 and the April and July citizen impeachment symposiums on Capitol Hill.)
Ask yourself, is Trump going to continue becoming worse—violently and cruelly worse—both domestically and abroad without a mounting deterrence as in a fast-rising Impeachment Drive?
Would not such an Impeachment Drive led by the Democratic Party galvanize its voters—seeking fighters on their behalf—and increase voter turnout for a decisive November victory, not a marginal, unworkable majority?
If your answer is YES to both questions, what are you waiting for? If your answer is NO, what are you waiting for? More destruction of the living conditions of the American people, including loss of life to blatantly neglected natural disasters, the closure or depletion of crucial scientific alert and research programs, political brutalities, Trump’s inflation and job losses, and his “endless wars” and attacks and crazed military threats abroad? So you can cut deals with a treacherous Trump with his record of betrayals?? (See New York Times: “The Autocracy Index: The editorial board tracks 12 markers of democratic erosion” and “Trump’s Broken Promises, in 11 Charts”.)
You and your Party need to be seriously introspective about your mounting political disasters, the independent exclusion of input from progressive citizen groups and progressive labor unions that decades ago so assisted the Party’s better angels in enacting key legislation. (See When the Senate Worked for Us: The Invisible Role of Staffers in Countering Corporate Lobbies by Michael Perschuk, Vanderbilt University Press).
First introspection: Twice Democrats lost to the corrupt, chronically lying, corporatist, and failed gambling czar when you should have defeated him and his GOP handily. You and the Party stubbornly want to win, having years ago electorally abandoned almost half the country (red states), but without upsetting your paymasters. These are principally Wall Street, AIPAC and the military industry. Your corporate-conflicted consultants, to whom you have contracted out so much of the Party’s campaigns, lean strongly in that direction.
Back in 1994, I called the savvy Elizabeth Moynihan. She told me she had just fired Senator Pat Moynihan’s re-election consultants and is taking over management of his campaign. She firmly added: “These consultants are destroying the Democratic Party.”
How do you explain the Democratic Party’s failure at numerous critical junctures to stop Trump’s presidential campaigns? Trump’s energy levels to overcome impossible odds in 2016 and even more in 2024 tower above the feeble, indecisive ways of the Democratic Party. Your Party totally bungled, letting Trump continue to destroy our Democracy despite serious indictments, becoming a convicted felon, being sued, and being credibly charged with sexually abusing five dozen women. Trump is a foul-mouthed racist/bigot who constantly used defamatory language, such as against fallen GIs in World War II (a serial draft dodger, no less), and who was profiteering in suspect manners. He was low in the polls, and was widely condemned for his initiatory role inciting the January 6, 2020 insurrection in Congress, taking lives and causing injuries of many defending Capitol Police and other casualties. Still, he defeated your Party in 2024!
Who could overcome such odds and win the presidency? Someone with towering egomaniacal energy, opposed by the anemic, indentured Democratic Party that refuses to replace losers with new progressive energy. Indeed, losers get promoted, such as heading the Democratic National Committee, while presumptive presidential winners like Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 are sabotaged by Party apparatchiks and their large donors.
More basically, the Party has become about raising money in place of credibly advancing progressive policies and programs. The almighty campaign dollars leave raising the paltry federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) to one-liners that your voting public doesn’t believe, or not taking up authentic full Medicare for all – which you just stunningly came out against!! Throwaway one-liners, like cracking down on corporate crooks, are not believable, because of the Party’s terrible record regarding corporate crime waves and massive corporate welfare. The same is true for not challenging Trump’s enormous 2017 tax cuts for the rich and big corporations when the Democrats took the House in January 2019. House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-MA), astonishingly announced on opening day that he was not going to reopen these deficit-ballooning tax cuts, depriving investments in public works and services throughout communities nationwide.
Then, of course, there is the long-sustained Democratic Party of overseas Empire, of a runaway unaudited – as long required by federal law – military budget and the aiding and abetting of Netanyahu’s genocidal mass murder and starvation of infants, children, mothers and fathers in Gaza, using U.S. bombs you voted for to drop the TNT equivalent of over eight Hiroshima bombs on that tiny enclave, the geographical size of Philadelphia, crowded with defenseless families having nothing to do with October 7, 2023, and the prior bombing raids by Israeli F-16s in the previous decades. Still, you proudly remain one of the top beneficiaries of AIPAC, which is the reason you and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) didn’t endorse your newly elected Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
More introspection may lead you to ask yourself whether you are up to leading the House Democrats in their immense and immediate tasks of policy and program restorations and adopting our Constitution’s mandated Congressional independence from the Presidency for the protection and advancement of the livelihoods, peace and freedoms of the American people. There is no indication that you are so willing and prepared. Unfortunately.
Your response is invited.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Political Malpractice': Israel Hawk Moskowitz Picked for Key House Mideast Post
"How much damage will Democratic leaders cause to their own brand and party for AIPAC money?" asked one critic.
Aug 25, 2026
Progressive and pro-Palestine critics on Tuesday accused House Democratic leaders of ignoring the majority of party voters who oppose US military aid to Israel by appointing one of the most pro-Israel members of Congress as the top Democrat on a key Mideast subcommittee.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced the appointment of Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) as ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was assigned to the Oversight and Intelligence Subcommittee, Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) joined the Africa Subcommittee, and Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) was named to the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Moskowitz thanked Meeks and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on social media "for this important responsibility" and, in a separate post, vowed to "work to strengthen America’s relationships with Israel and our Gulf allies, expand regional peace, advance American diplomacy, and ensure our foreign policy is grounded in strength, security, and reality."
During his two terms in Congress, Moskowitz—who last week survived a primary challenge by pro-Palestine progressive Oliver Larkin—has repeatedly argued against conditioning armed aid to apartheid Israel on compliance with international law or protection of Palestinian civilians amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Israel's illegal occupation, colonization, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Moskowitz was one of only 12 Democrats who voted for a 2023 Republican aid package to Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual US funding—as the Israeli military killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.
Critics argued that placing one of Congress’ most outspoken supporters of Israel in a key Middle East policy position shows that Democratic leadership remains badly out of step with its own voters, a majority of whom concur with a United Nations commission of inquiry, human rights groups, scholars, and around 20 national governments who say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Moskowitz denies the Gaza genocide, has conflated criticism of Israeli crimes with hatred of Jews, and was denounced by House progressives including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, for authoring an amendment to ban US officials from using State Department funds to cite official Gaza casualty figures—which now include more than 250,000 Palestinians killed, wounded, or missing during Israel's onslaught.
Meeks' appointments come at a time when 3 in 4 Democratic voters oppose US aid to Israel—up from just 45% three years ago—and after the issue was a factor in former Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat by President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
In response to Moskowitz's appointment, the progressive organizing group Demand Progress issued a statement noting that the congressman "has consistently opposed placing conditions on military aid to Israel, repeatedly voted against the majority of House Democrats to sanction International Criminal Court officials, and earlier this year said he would oppose an Iran war powers resolution."
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said:
By making a hard-line Israel supporter their point person on Middle East policy, House Democratic leaders are doubling down on a failed approach to Israel that shows contempt for the clear and growing majority of Democratic voters who want to stop cutting blank checks for the Israeli government. Donald Trump’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and his commitment to keeping the US joined at the hip to Israel are wildly unpopular and have been a disaster for the nation. Elevating someone who consistently sides with Trump in support of Israel, and who has a long record as an Iran hawk, represents clear political malpractice on behalf of House Democratic leaders.
Palestine defenders and Democrats concerned about the possible fallout of elevating an Israel hawk to a top subcommittee post as the party seeks to win back control of Congress in November's midterm elections bdenounced the appointment of Moskowitz.
ReThinking Foreign Policy president Mitchell Plitnick called Meeks' move "very bad news."
"Moskowitz is a completely inappropriate choice, given how wildly out of step he is with Democratic voters on Mideast issues," he said on X. "It's yet another indication of why it is so desperately important that Democratic 'leaders' like Hakeem Jeffries and Gregory Meeks be replaced as soon as possible."
Erik Sperling, executive director at Just Foreign Policy, called the decision to appoint Moskowitz "shocking."
"Meeks and Jeffries are apparently intending to signal that the anti-war and pro-Palestinian movements are unwelcome in the [Democratic] Party?"
Writer Wajahat Ali asked on X, "How much damage will Democratic leaders cause to their own brand and party for AIPAC money?"
Ali was referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose campaign contributions have been a deciding factor in electing pro-Israel candidates to Congress and defeating those who advocate for Palestinian rights. So far, AIPAC has poured more than $100 million into the 2026 midterm elections—including around $30 million against Michigan Democratic US Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.
According to the watchdog group Track AIPAC, Moskowitz has received $833,288 in campaign contributions from the Israel lobby over the course of his career, Wasserman Schultz has taken $1,542,327, and Bell—who ousted former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—a staggering $18,126,578. Pocan, a pro-Palestine progressive, rejects AIPAC funding.
As for Jeffries and Meeks, Track AIPAC reports the former has taken $1,495,709 and the latter $986,946 in campaign contributions from the Israel lobby.
The local grassroots group NY Dumps AIPAC lamented Meeks' appointment of what it called "one of the most Islamophobic genocide cheerleaders in Congress to be the top House Dem overseeing Middle Eastern foreign policy."
"In doing so, Meeks is compromising world peace for the sake of AIPAC," the group said.
Some observers, including Zeteo News reporter Prem Thakker, noted that Tuesday's moves followed Jeffries' recent secret meeting with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and special envoy for peace missions.
Responding to Moskowitz's promotion, Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), highlighted polling published Monday by the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project showing that "Democrats in the first six states to vote in the 2028 presidential primary overwhelmingly demand sanctions and a total weapons embargo against Israel."
"At what point," asked Duss, "can Democratic voters finally have foreign policy committee leadership that actually represents the party’s anti-war majority instead of its small and thankfully dwindling hawkish minority?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
What's the Rationale for Jeffries to Talk Secretly With Kushner?
Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All. If so, this is a failure of leadership we can no longer tolerate. If there's a better explanation, let's hear it.
Aug 24, 2026
These days, there is not much that can really shock or surprise me. Political developments that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago happen on a regular basis. However, I was truly appalled to read a story in the New York Times on Sunday, August 23, by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni (two of the best in the business) which reports that:
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House Minority Leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly. Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics.
Kushner’s incentive to meet with Jeffries is self-evident. The consensus among most pollsters and political commentators is that the Democrats will capture a majority in the House of Representatives. Historical trends, the fact that president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms, and Trump abysmal public opinion numbers almost guarantee a Democratic majority. So, from Kushner’s perspective, it makes a lot of sense for him to start negotiating the best deal that he can get from the man he assumes will be the new Democratic speaker.
What is the rationale for Jeffries to negotiate with Kushner? It is truly hard to fathom the logic on his part. Certainly, there is a time for talks with the Trump Administration. The time is clearly after the Democrats have won a majority in the House. You always want to be negotiating from a position of strength, not when you are trying to win an election.
Given President Trump’s record on negotiating to reach a compromise which is poor to non-existent, what faith does Jeffries have in any promises that Kushner might make?
It is interesting that the revelations of the Jeffries/Kushner talks come one week after Democratic leader publicly backed away from Medicare for All on NBC’s Meet the Press. Is this just a coincidence? Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I would argue that it is part of a pattern. Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All.
One of the guiding principles of the late Democratic Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, was that “all politics is local.” Democratic Leader Jeffries should remember this adage. The Democrats who will join the next Congress in January of 2029 are likely to support a leader who is committed to fighting against the Trump Administration and delivering on things like Medicare for All which is widely supported by the American people. Right now, it looks like Jeffries will not meet this bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pathetic Stuff': Jeffries Rebuked Over Secret Meeting With Kushner
The only valid reason for such a meeting, said one critic, would be for the House Minority Leader to tell the president's son-in-law that he’ll be subpoenaed by "for a corruption investigation on day one of Democratic control of the House."
Aug 23, 2026
Persistent calls among progressive critics and Democratic voters that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should step aside from their leadership roles ticked up again on Sunday after it was reported that Jeffries met secretly in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, the far-right son-in-law of President Donald Trump, who has also served as a top White House advisor and envoy.
The New York Times reported Sunday that the two men "met privately in recent weeks" in order to discuss "potential areas of common ground" if the Democrats regain control of one or both chambers of Congress in the midterms.
According to the Times:
The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics. Still, its timing underscored that those around Mr. Trump were well aware of the likelihood of a Democratic-led House, and trying to foster as much of a working relationship as possible before any change.
News of the meeting, later confirmed by other news outlets but which Kushner and Jeffries neither confirmed nor denied, landed poorly for progressive critics who make the case that Jeffries' political leanings and leadership tendencies are a roadblock to the kind of transformational change wanted by a majority faction of the Democratic Party and also needed to defeat Trump and his fascist allies once and for all.
"Jeffries and Schumer have to go if Democrats are even going to gain any ground," said David W. Pippy, a former school administrator and local union president, in response to the reporting. "They need fighters, not secret meetings."
Last Sunday, Jeffries went on a weekend news show and said he does not support Medicare for All legislation in the House, despite poll after poll showing Democratic voters overwhelmingly support it.
"The lack of political talent in New York is astounding," Gabe McKinley, an actor and director based in New York City, declared in a social media post. "Jeffries and Schumer are bad at their jobs."
The Times, citing its sources familiar with the meeting, reported that "the pair discussed housing, immigration and the high cost of living as potential areas of common ground." Kushner also suggested Jeffries connect with Trump's White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, whom he reportedly described as the "most serious" person in the president's inner circle. It wasn't clear how Jeffries responded.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan responded by saying Sunday was "a good day to re-up my piece from almost exactly a year ago," in which he explained why Schumer and Jeffries, both of whom represent New York in Congress, are leaders that the party—which has now lost the White House to Trump twice—can no longer afford. In his op-ed, Hasan wrote:
Since Trump was inaugurated for a second time in January, Jeffries and Schumer have demonstrated time and again that they are not built for this particular moment. While Trump seeds the ground for an American dictatorship, these two top Dems pine for bipartisanship. While millions of rank-and-file Democrats across the country say they want leaders who will fight, Jeffries and Schumer fold. While younger Democrats like [NYC City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.NY)] offer energy and charisma, these two lackluster leaders in the House and Senate offer cringe chants and even cringier photo ops.
It is past time for both Jeffries and Schumer to step down and step aside. This fascist moment, this age of Trump, demands outspoken, unrelenting and fearless opposition. Whether you are a Democrat, or simply a democrat, we all deserve better.
On Sunday, Hasan argued that the only valid reason Jeffries should be meeting with Kushner is to "tell him he’ll be subpoenaed by the House for a corruption investigation on day one of Democratic control of the House."
Former Republican strategist Tim Miller, now with The Bulwark, agreed.
Otherwise, said Hasan, "This is just pathetic stuff from the House Dem leader."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Utterly Unsustainable': Employer-Sponsored Healthcare Costs Set to Keep Surging
While Democratic leadership continues to oppose a Medicare for All system overwhelmingly favored by their party's voters, progressives point to studies showing that such a program will save lives and money.
Aug 20, 2026
US workers with employer-sponsored health insurance are expected to spend an average of $5,297 on healthcare this year, including premiums deducted from their paychecks, deductibles, and copayments, according to a new estimate from benefits consulting giant Aon reported Thursday by The Wall Street Journal.
That's $388 more than last year, and the pain is expected to intensify in 2027. According to a survey conducted by WTW, another consultant, US employers anticipate their healthcare costs will soar 11.1% next year. That could be the steepest increase in more than two decades, and would mark the fifth consecutive year of rising employer healthcare costs.
As the Journal noted, expensive cancer treatments and widespread adoption of weight loss drugs are among the factors driving up spending—and costs. For workers, that means larger deductions from their paychecks, higher out-of-pocket costs, and, for some, abandoning insurance altogether.
“Employers are telling us that this is utterly unsustainable,” WTW population health leader Jeff Levin-Scherz told the Journal.
Jason Wilburn, co-owner of Paul Wissmach Glass Co. in Paden City, West Virginia—which employs 35 people—said that the company has endured double-digit premium increases every year since 2021, with healthcare costs now accounting for 5% of revenue. That's a higher percentage than the company's margin of profit.
To cope, Wissmach Glass Co. increased its biweekly payroll deduction from $40 to $50 per worker, even though the company is still paying about 90% of the total premium. The increase has resulted in some employees deciding to drop their coverage.
“It’s frustrating and sad,” Wilburn told the Journal. “Something’s got to change.”
Democrats cited the report in a statement Thursday, noting that President Donald Trump and Republicans "have spiked healthcare costs for millions of Americans."
"First, they cut Medicaid by nearly $1 TRILLION—the largest cut to healthcare in history—to pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich," the party said, referring to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump last year. "Then, they refused to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, hiking premiums by an average of 58%."
"Trump and Republicans’ cuts have already forced 3 million people to drop their coverage, with more expected to drop coverage in the coming months as premiums are expected to see another double-digit increase next year," the Democrats' statement continued. "More than half of Americans already could not reliably afford healthcare in 2025—a five-year low—and nearly 1 in 4 American workers report staying in unwanted jobs just to maintain consistent health insurance."
“Donald Trump and Republicans’ endless cuts to healthcare have jacked up costs for millions of Americans," Democratic National Committee spokesperson Jaelin O’Halloran said. "Everyday Americans are dipping even further into their savings and taking on record amounts of debt to afford a trip to the doctor’s office or lifesaving medicine—and Trump doesn’t care."
"While Trump prioritizes his White House vanity projects and tax cuts for the rich, working families are pinching pennies to pay their medical bills or forgoing healthcare coverage because they can’t afford it—and they will hold Trump and Republicans accountable in November," O'Halloran added, referring to the upcoming midterm elections.
While progressives have long argued that the solution lies in decoupling health insurance from employment, Democratic leaders remain loath to advocate Medicare for All or other universal healthcare options. Just this week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) reaffirmed his opposition to Medicare for All, a position at odds with 90% of Democratic voters surveyed in a new CBS/YouGov poll.
As Common Dreams recently reported, a recent Yale University study found that Medicare for All—as proposed in legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)—would save over 114,000 lives annually and $1 trillion per year in US healthcare spending.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) cited that study in an interview on Sunday in which he refuted Jeffries' stance.
“Medicare for All is arguably the most important priority,” Khanna said, calling for a vote on Sanders' bill. “It would save money, and it would save lives.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Serious Question: Would Hakeem Jeffries Prefer Republicans Retain Congress?
The so-called "party leader" is failing fantastically when it comes to building a United Front to defeat Donald Trump's fascism.
Aug 20, 2026
In the almost-over primary season, Democratic voters chose a mix of progressive nominees like Abdul El Sayed, Peggy Flanagan and Angie Nixon and moderates like David Crowley and Jared Moscowitz, often by slim margins. These candidates often disagreed on issues like Medicare For All and military aide for Israel.
But in the 11 weeks between now and the general election, Democrats progressives and moderates need to form a United Front to take back the Senate and House and have checks and balances on an increasingly unhinged fascistic Donald Trump. As I pointed out in Common Dreams last week, in 1930s Germany moderately left and far left parties fought against each other as hard as they fought against the Nazis and ended up with Hitler in power who outlawed them both and sent them to prisons and eventually concentration camps.
Until Election Day, Democratic leaders need to encourage a United Front against fascism.
But that's the opposite of what House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is doing. He squarely took the side of the so-called moderates and attacked the progressives.
On Meet The Press, host Kristen Welker mentioned that Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare For All legislation for ten years from 2013-2021 but hasn't co-sponsored it since he became Democratic House leader. She asked him if he would even put Medicare For All up for a vote if he became speaker.
Jeffries repeatedly evaded answering the question, but then finally declared: “It's not legislation that I currently am cosponsoring or that I support.” He would not even promise to put it up for a vote. At least 104 current Democratic House members are co-sponsors of Medicare For All legislations and Jeffries won't even promise to give them a chance to vote on it.
This despite the fact that recent polls show that 65% of voters, including 78% of Democrats, 71% of independents and even 49% of Republicans support Medicare For All. And even after respondents were told that Medicare for All would eliminate most private insurance and require higher taxes, support remained above 60 percent.
(It's worth noting that in the current election cycle, Jeffries has received $391,000 of campaign cash from the healthcare sector’s political action committees.)
Jeffries then went on to attack the Democratic Socialists of America telling Meet The Press, "I don't support the DSA agenda as has been articulated by the DSA itself." But his attacks on the DSA focused just on three positions which may have been taken in the past by small factions of the DSA, like defunding the police, open border, and abolishing the Senate. None of these positions are backed by actual DSA candidates who have won Democratic primaries.
Jeffries deciding to put his thumbs on the scale and back one sector of the Democratic Party is directly contrary to the role of a party leader whose job should be to unite the party to win the House and Senate in the General Election.
As Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff to the late Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid wrote in The New York Times, "It is not up to party leaders or the Democratic National Committee to litigate whether a candidate’s views are acceptable; the voters of a state or district decide. The coalition that passed the New Deal included everyone from a Communist sympathizer to self-avowed white supremacists, putting the compromises asked of us today in perspective."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'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
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