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
house democrats
'He's Just Stealing Your Money': House Dems Launch Bid to Block $1.8 Billion Trump-MAGA 'Slush Fund'
"It's illegal and corrupt as hell," Congressman Don Beyer said of the president's self-dealing $1.77 billion IRS settlement. "We're fighting it in court."
May 18, 2026
Ninety-three House Democrats on Monday launched a bid to block President Donald Trump's $1.77 billion taxpayer-funded settlement with the Internal Revenue Service, through which the president could reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
The Democratic lawmakers joined an amicus brief filed in Trump v. IRS before Judge Kathleen Williams in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Their action followed the Trump administration's announcement of the creation of a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" as part of an agreement to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over a leak of the president's tax returns.
Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche described the fund as “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization" allegedly carried out by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Biden administration "to be heard and seek redress.”
However, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called the settlement "pure fraud and highway robbery," noting that Trump oversees the agency that agreed to settle with him.
"No president can concoct a fake case for $10 billion in damages against the government so he can be plaintiff and defendant and then ‘settle’ his bogus case against himself as a judge," Raskin said.
"This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election-stealing schemes," he added.
Trump's slush fund would give nearly $2 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to his supporters, including violent criminals.He's just stealing your money.There's no transparency, we won't know who gets paid, or how much.It's illegal and corrupt as hell. We're fighting it in court.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) May 18, 2026 at 10:41 AM
The Democratic lawmakers' amicus filing seeks to block the settlement, which could use taxpayer funds to compensate pro-Trump figures like the nearly 1,600 Capitol insurrection defendants charged or convicted of crimes connected to the Capitol attack, including seditious conspiracy, assault on law enforcement officers with dangerous weapons, and other felonies.
“Trump suing the IRS was never about justice, it’s another self-enrichment scheme on the backs of hard-working taxpayers," House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said Monday.
“Now, with the court poised to weigh in only days from now, Trump is scrambling to cut a backroom deal and solidify his position as the judge, jury, and executioner," Neal added. "Reporting detailing Trump’s interest in a billion-dollar slush fund for the J6 criminals and permanent immunity from any further IRS scrutiny only deepens the stench of corruption."
Matt Platkin and Norm Eisen, lawyers representing the Democrats, said Monday: “It's against the law for the president to in effect sue himself—and then settle for a huge sum. The court has the power to put a stop to these shenanigans and should do so."
Trump was accused of rewarding political violence when he granted blanket pardons to the January 6 insurrectionists on his first day back in the White House. According to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, dozens of pardoned Capitol attackers have since been charged or convicted of serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
The president and other MAGA figures have accused the Biden administration of "weaponizing" the DOJ against Trump and his supporters. Meanwhile, Trump has targeted political opponents; federal officials involved in investigating and prosecuting him for alleged election interference and mishandling classified documents; pro-Palestine activists; universities and corporations resisting his anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion crusade; journalists; civil society groups; and others.
Progressive advocacy groups and legal experts joined Democratic lawmakers in condemning Trump's settlement.
“Donald Trump and his compromised Department of Justice have created a slush fund to make payouts to Trump supporters and cronies,” Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman said in a statement. “This scheme amounts to the creation of a January 6 payment fund.”
I say without hyperbole that this is the most brazenly corrupt action in US Presidential history. That it does not immediately lead to impeachment is a dangerous sign of how far the rule of law has declined.
[image or embed]
— Ryan Enos (@ryanenos.bsky.social) May 18, 2026 at 10:28 AM
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and public affairs at Stand Up America, said that “while Americans struggle with rising costs fueled by his economic mismanagement and war with Iran, Donald Trump is teaching a masterclass in grift."
"He’s negotiated with himself to create a $1.7 billion tax-dollar slush fund with no oversight, no transparency, and no accountability," Edkins continued. “In simple terms, Trump is stealing $1.7 billion in taxpayer dollars to hand out to himself, his cronies, his donors, or anyone he deems sufficiently loyal—including supporters who were convicted by juries of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021."
"This is truly unprecedented corruption," he added, "and American taxpayers will foot the bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Demand Answers as Trump Photo Disappears From DOJ Online Epstein Files
"What else is being covered up?"
Dec 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats on Saturday pressed US Attorney General Pam Bondi for answers regarding the apparent removal of a photo showing President Donald Trump surrounded by young female models from Friday's Department of Justice release of files related to the late convicted child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.
Amid the heavily redacted documents in Friday's DOJ release was a photo of a desk with an open drawer containing multiple photos of Trump, including one of him with Epstein and convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and another of him with the models.
However, the photo—labeled EFTA00000468 in the DOJ's Epstein Library—was no longer on the site as of Saturday morning.
"This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump, has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release," Democrats on the House Oversight Committee noted in a Bluesky post. "AG Bondi, is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public."
This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release.AG Bondi, is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.
[image or embed]
— Oversight Dems (@oversightdemocrats.house.gov) December 20, 2025 at 9:30 AM
Numerous critics have accused the Trump administration of a cover-up due to the DOJ's failure to meet a Friday deadline to release all Epstein-related documents and heavy redactions—including documents of 100 pages or more that are completely blacked out—to many of the files.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded to the criticism by claiming that "the only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law—full stop."
"Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim," he added.
Earlier this year, officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly redacted Trump's name from its file on Epstein, who was the president's longtime former friend and who died in 2019 in a New York City jail cell under mysterious circumstances officially called suicide while facing federal child sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
Trump has not been accused of any crimes in connection with Epstein.
House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said during a Friday CNN interview that the DOJ only released about 10% of the full Epstein files.
The DOJ is breaking the law by not releasing the full Epstein files. This is not transparency. This is just more coverup by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi. They need to release all the files, NOW.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Robert Garcia (@robertgarcia.house.gov) December 19, 2025 at 5:06 PM
"The DOJ has had months and hundreds of agents to put these files together, and yet entire documents are redacted—from the first word to the last," Garcia said on X. "What are they hiding? The American public deserves transparency. Release all the files now!"
In a joint statement Friday, Garcia and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said, "We are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law."
"The survivors of this nightmare deserve justice, the co-conspirators must be held accountable, and the American people deserve complete transparency from DOJ," they added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by Trump last month and required the release of all Epstein materials by December 19—said in a video published after Friday's document dump that he and Massie "are exploring all options" to hold administration officials accountable.
"It can be the impeachment of people at Justice, inherent contempt, or referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
50+ Dems Slam Rubio Plan to Burn 500 Metric Tons of Emergency Food Aid
"This action is not only morally indefensible, but also wasteful, strategically shortsighted, and completely counter to the entirety of your work while in the Senate."
Jul 18, 2025
More than 50 congressional Democrats on Friday condemned U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to withhold and destroy nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food aid for Afghanistan and Pakistan—a move that came a month after the Trump administration's State Department abolished all overseas positions at the United States Agency for International Development.
The USAID emergency food aid—which has been stored in a warehouse in Dubai for months and will expire before the end of July—is enough to feed around 1.5 million children for a week. The aid consists of high energy biscuits that are used primarily to satisfy the immediate nutritional needs of children enduring food crises. It is now set to be incinerated.
"This action is not only morally indefensible, but also wasteful, strategically shortsighted, and completely counter to the entirety of your work while in the Senate," the Democratic lawmakers wrote in a letter to Rubio.
"Given the alarming rates of food insecurity and famine in regions like Gaza and Sudan, the decision to burn lifesaving aid produced by American farmers and paid for by American tax dollars amounts to a tragic abdication of our global humanitarian responsibilities and hurts our own global interests," the letter asserts.
Secretary Rubio is planning to withhold 500 metric tons of vital food aid that could feed 1.5 million starving children… and then incinerate the food once it expires. UNACCEPTABLE!
[image or embed]
— Rep. Mark Pocan (@pocan.house.gov) July 18, 2025 at 12:55 PM
"We are also alarmed by reports indicating that internal USAID memos requesting urgent approval to move the biscuits went unanswered for months," the lawmakers said. "If accurate, this speaks to a systemic breakdown in communication and leadership that has paralyzed America's food aid delivery systems."
"The United States has long led the world in humanitarian assistance, not only as a matter of compassion but also as a cornerstone of global stability and diplomacy," the letter concludes. "Destroying aid that could save lives undermines that legacy and damages our standing in the international community. We urge you to immediately prioritize the distribution of all remaining and viable food assistance stockpiles. American leadership demands nothing less."
Rubio's decision comes a month after the secretary of state ordered the abolition of all overseas USAID positions amid the Trump administration's downsizing and elimination of the agency, one of many targeted by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by multibillionaire Elon Musk.
As Common Dreams reported in May, 66,000 tons of food—including grains, high-energy biscuits, and vegetable oil—were already mouldering in USAID warehouses.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce attempted to justify Rubio's decision during a Thursday press conference.
"If something is expired, we will destroy it. It's a matter of whether or not it's safe to distribute," she said, adding that 500 metric tons amounts to "less than 1%" of all annual U.S. food aid.
"We, as an example, distribute roughly 1 million metric tons of food aid every year, which is reflective of the American people's generosity," Bruce said.
While many observers expressed surprise over the impending destruction of so much food aid, some contended that it tracks with the Trump administration's wider attitudes toward poor people.
" Republicans don't care if American children starve," said podcast host Lana Quest, "so why would they care about famine in other countries?"Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowl reporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Demand Hearing on 'Backroom Agreement' Between DOGE and DeJoy
"Any potential deal that would give Elon Musk and his DOGE associates unilateral authority to manipulate the most critical, expansive national mail network on the planet is deeply troubling," wrote a group of House Democrats.
Mar 17, 2025
A group of House Democrats is demanding that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conduct a public hearing on the Trump administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency's plans for the U.S. Postal Service, in light of recent reporting that U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy says he signed an agreement with DOGE to assist the nation's mail service "in identifying and achieving further efficiencies."
The news follows Washington Post coverage from February, when the outlet reported that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering putting the Postal Service under the control of the Commerce Department. In December, the Post also reported that Trump was eyeing privatizing the Postal Service. Elon Musk, a GOP megadonor who is playing a core role in Trump's efforts to slash federal spending and personnel, has also said the Postal Service should be privatized.
Postal workers unions are fiercely opposed to any effort to privatize the Postal Service.
"The Trump administration... is now subjecting the USPS, America's most trusted federal institution, to the chainsaw approach of Elon Musk and DOGE. This broad assault on the independence of the USPS demands congressional oversight, especially from the committee with jurisdiction over the USPS," according to the letter, which was signed by 20 House Democrats.
In a March 13 letter to congressional leaders, U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told Congress he signed an agreement with representatives from Elon Musk's DOGE and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) so that DOGE could help the U.S. Postal Service, which has experienced billions in financial losses in recent years, work to address "big problems."
The Postal Service plans to cut 10,000 employees in the next 30 days through a voluntary early retirement program, according to DeJoy's letter.
DeJoy cited challenges facing the Postal Service, such as "mismanagement of our self-funded retirement assets," "burdensome regulatory requirements restricting normal business practice," and "unfunded mandates imposed on us by legislation."
The letter demanding a public hearing, which was addressed to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), was spearheaded by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.)
"This backroom agreement between the billionaire-led DOGE and Postmaster DeJoy sets off alarm bells about this administration's plans for the Postal Service's role as a cornerstone public institution," according to the letter. "The Postal Service facilitates the delivery of more than 115 billion pieces of mail each year, a significant portion of which is delivered to rural, low-income, and hard-to-reach areas that would not otherwise receive service if not for the universal service obligation, which has received bipartisan support in Congress and is integral to the mission of Postal Service."
"We agree that there are steps Congress could take to strengthen the financial sustainability of the Postal Service, but any potential deal that would give Elon Musk and his DOGE associates unilateral authority to manipulate the most critical, expansive national mail network on the planet is deeply troubling," they continued.
The group is urging that the committee hold a hearing and wrote that they have prepared a letter to send to DeJoy asking that he furnish any signed agreements he made with the GSA and DOGE. The group is urging that Comer also sign on to that letter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as DeJoy Teams Up With DOGE to Gut US Postal Service
One Democratic congresswoman called the partnership "a blatant move toward privatization."
Mar 14, 2025
U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's Thursday announcement that the independent United States Postal Service is partnering with the Department of Government Efficiency on a cost-cutting crusade that includes a planned reduction of 10,000 workers stoked fears that one of America's most trusted and relied-upon federal agencies is on a path toward privatization.
In a
letter to congressional leaders, DeJoy said DOGE will help the USPS "in identifying and achieving further efficiencies." The postal chief listed "mismanagement" of the agency's retirement assets and workers' compensation program, "unfunded mandates imposed on us by legislation," and "burdensome regulatory requirements restricting normal business practice" as issues to be addressed.
Scoop: Postmaster General Louis DeJoy agreed last nigh to collaborate with DOGE "to assist us in identifying and achieving further efficiencies." Follows Monday meeting at USPS headquarters between DOGE & DeJoy. We've reported Trump considering privatizing USPS or merging with Commerce Dept.
[image or embed]
— Jacob Bogage ( @jacobbogage.bsky.social) March 13, 2025 at 10:59 AM
"The letter suggests alarming actions for DOGE to pursue that would easily lead to the privatization and politicization of the Postal Service," Democrats on the U.S. House Oversight Committee said in response to the announcement. "This includes DeJoy's call to gut or even terminate the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent regulator of the Postal Service created by Congress and responsible for approving rate changes and ensuring appropriate service."
Brian Renfroe, president of the nearly 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), said Thursday that while "policy changes are needed to improve the Postal Service's financial viability... misguided ideas like privatization" are not the answer.
"Commonsense solutions are what the Postal Service needs, not privatization efforts that will threaten 640,000 postal employees' jobs, 7.9 million jobs tied to our work, and the universal service every American relies on daily," Renfroe added.
DeJoy—who last month announced his intent to step down after more than four years in office—has led a dramatic restructuring of the USPS, a constitutionally sanctioned agency. His tenure has been marred by allegations of criminal election obstruction, conflicts of interest, and other corruption. Critics have also warned that DeJoy's Delivering for America, a 10-year austerity plan, put the agency on a fast track toward slower service, job cuts, and, ultimately, privatization.
U.S. President Donald Trump has acknowledged that his administration is revisiting plans to possibly privatize the Postal Service—a policy recommended by the Office of Management and Budget during his first term. Last month, The Washington Post reported that Trump planned to fire the entire Postal Board of Governors and bring the independent USPS under control of the Department of Commerce, a move experts argue would likely be illegal.
Elon Musk, the de facto head of DOGE, said earlier this month that the USPS and Amtrak, the national passenger rail service, should be privatized.
DOGE's short but staggering track record of eviscerating federal agencies by dubiously firing tens of thousands of workers—a policy a federal judge found illegal on Thursday—is deeply concerning to many defenders of the Postal Service.
"The only thing worse for the Postal Service than DeJoy's Delivering for America plan is turning the service over to Elon Musk and DOGE so they can undermine it, privatize it, and then profit off Americans' loss," Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday.
"This capitulation will have catastrophic consequences for all Americans—especially those in rural and hard-to-reach areas—who rely on the Postal Service every day to deliver mail, medications, ballots, and more," the congressman added. "Reliable mail delivery can't just be reserved for MAGA supporters and Tesla owners."
Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) said on social media Thursday: "Louis DeJoy just admitted he agreed to hand over the Postal Service to Elon Musk. This is a blatant move toward privatization, and I will fight to protect our postal workers and ensure affordable service—especially for rural communities."
Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) said the agreement "threatens millions who rely on USPS for medications, Social Security checks, and staying connected."
National days of action in defense of the Postal Service are planned for
March 20 by the American Postal Workers Union and March 23 by NALC.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'People Will Not Forget': Fury as Schumer Caves to Trump-Musk Destruction
"Working people are done with performative solidarity," said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez in response. "Either you stand with us against the Republican CR, or you stand with the Musk-Trump authoritarian agenda."
Mar 13, 2025
Update (7:44 pm ET):
Despite loud opposition from constituents and progressive lawmakers against such a move, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York took to the Senate floor Thursday evening to announce he would vote to advance a Republican spending bill that critics say would "sacrifice the needs of working people at the altar of the ultra-wealthy" and greenlight further chaos and destruction by President Donald Trump and his Oligarch-in-Chief Elon Musk.
"The Republican bill is a terrible option," Schumer said in his remarks. "It is deeply partisan. It doesn't address far too many of this country's needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option."
Before his address on the Senate floor, Schumer had said the Senate Democrats would hold the line against the continuing resolution which Republicans in the House passed earlier this week. A procedural cloture vote for the resolution needs 60 votes for passage, and Schumer's acquiescence will likely open the door for other Democrats to follow. If cloture passes, the Democrats give away any leverage they had as the Republicans will only need a simple majority to pass the bill.
"Chuck Schumer caving and saying he’ll vote for a blank check for Trump and Musk is demonstrative of why Democrats lose," lamented progressive activist and writer Jonathan Cohn. "Voters so often don’t believe what they say because they don’t believe what they say."
Strikingly, progressives in the House—including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Schumer's fellow New Yorker—have been the most vocal in their opposition to the bill.
"Senate Democrats should not allow this chaos to continue," Ocasio-Cortez declared in a social media post following Schumer's U-turn on the resolution. She urged constituents to keep fighting by putting pressure on their senators ahead of a vote that is now expected Friday. "Call your Senator and ask to vote NO on cloture and NO on the Republican spending bill."
"Respectfully Senator Schumer, no," replied Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.). "This Republican bill is bad for workers, bad for our veterans, bad for our seniors. Republicans should pull it and let us get back to work crafting a budget that works for all of our families."
Earlier:
Reports on Thursday that Senate Democrats are considering capitulating to the GOP's disastrous government funding plan in exchange for a certain-to-fail vote on an alternative bill sparked anger among progressives, with one House Democrat warning that "people will not forget" if the minority party caves to Republicans and the Trump administration.
"Those games won't fool anyone," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote amid growing indications that Senate Democrats are preparing to help Republicans clear a key procedural hurdle in the way of their six-month funding legislation in exchange for a vote on a clean 30-day continuing resolution (CR).
"I hope Senate Democrats understand there is nothing clever about setting up a fake failed 30-day CR first to turn around and vote for cloture on the GOP spending bill," Ocasio-Cortez added. "It won't trick voters, it won't trick House members."
Sixty votes are required to invoke cloture and move to a vote on the Republican bill's final passage. The bill proposes $13 billion in cuts to non-military spending and imposes no constraints on the Trump administration or unelected billionaire Elon Musk as they eviscerate federal agencies and unlawfully withhold spending authorized by Congress.
With Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expected to vote no, Republicans will need at least eight Democratic votes to invoke cloture. Final passage of the measure would only require simple-majority support.
"Do not cave. Vote no on cloture. Stand up for the American people like House Democrats did."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in a floor speech Wednesday that "Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture" on the House-passed bill and said Democrats are "unified on a clean April 11th CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass."
Subsequent reporting and public comments from Senate Democrats soon made clear that they could still be willing to give Republicans the votes they need to pass their funding bill before the government shuts down at midnight on Friday.
CBS News states, "Senate Democrats are considering a plan that would pave the way for a GOP bill to keep the government funded for six months in exchange for a doomed-to-fail vote on their own 30-day alternative."
Politico reported that Senate Democrats and Republicans "have made initial contact about a possible way out of the looming government shutdown." The outlet noted that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) "appeared open to allowing Democrats a chance to vote on an amendment for a 30-day stopgap as part of a larger agreement that would allow the Senate to pass" the GOP bill, which would fund the government through September.
Progressives were quick to warn Senate Democrats against adopting that plan.
"Getting a vote on a four-week clean continuing resolution is not the same as getting a clean continuing resolution," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote Thursday. "Do not cave. Vote no on cloture. Stand up for the American people like House Democrats did."
The progressive advocacy group Indivisible urged Americans to keep calling Democratic senators who are seen as possible yes votes on a Republican cloture motion.
Following Indivisible's social media post, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) announced that he would oppose the GOP measure. Kelly is also reportedly planning to oppose cloture.
🚨 We need you to call your Democratic senator ASAP if their name is on this list. Tell your senator you will have their back if they do the right thing and vote NO on the extreme MAGA spending bill that would give Trump more power to dismantle the federal government: indivisible.org/resource/cal...
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ( @indivisible.org) March 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Some Senate Democrats have been vocally agonizing over the possibility of being blamed for allowing a government shutdown, even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress and opted to advance a partisan funding bill rather than working with the minority party on a viable solution.
But in a letter to senators on Wednesday, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—the nation's largest federal workers' union—stressed that this is not a typical shutdown fight.
"AFGE's position until this year has been that although continuing resolutions are far from ideal, they are better than an
outright government shutdown," wrote Everett Kelley, the union's president. "This year is different... The Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated over the last seven weeks that it will not spend appropriated funds as the law dictates, including funds provided under the current continuing resolution that was enacted in December with AFGE's support."
Kelley went on to reject the notion that a vote against the GOP bill is a vote in favor of a shutdown, noting that Congress still has time to pass a short-term continuing resolution and that "we only find ourselves in the current predicament because of the Republican leadership's steadfast refusal to engage in sincere bipartisan negotiations on this or any issue since December."
"With thousands of federal workers either fired, placed on administrative leave, or at immediate risk of losing their jobs, AFGE members have concluded that a widespread government shutdown has been underway since January 20 and will continue to spread whether senators vote yes or no on H.R. 1968," Kelley wrote. "Under the current CR, federal workers are being treated no better than they will be if government funding ceases Friday night."
"Only a return to the negotiating table can prevent the government-wide debacle that we see every day," he added. "A yes vote on H.R. 1968 eliminates one of the last opportunities for Congress to assert any rights under Article I of the Constitution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cowardly' and 'Spineless': 10 Dems Join House GOP to Censure Al Green for Disrupting Trump Speech
"Some of these Democrats have more smoke for Rep. Al Green than the man trying to cut Social Security and Medicaid," wrote one critic.
Mar 06, 2025
Ten House Democrats earned rebuke from progressives Thursday for joining with Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green, a Democrat representing Texas, for disrupting U.S. President Donald Trump's speech before Congress earlier this week.
The censure was introduced by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) after Green interrupted Trump's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. During the speech, Green shook his cane at Trump while standing and shouted that the president had "no mandate to cut Medicaid."
The censure vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was 224-198, with two Democratic members voting present, including Green. The 10 Democrats who joined Republicans in favor of the motion were Reps. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Tom Suozzi of New York, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Ami Bera of California, Ed Case of Hawaii, Jim Costa of California, and Laura Gillen of New York.
Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, called them "cowardly."
Prior to the vote, former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wrote: "Any Democrat who votes in favor of censuring Al Green should be ashamed of themselves. Do not give Republicans one single Democratic vote."
Prior to the censure vote, Axios reported on the reaction to Green's heckling of Trump and other acts of of defiance from Democrats during the speech, quoting several Democratic lawmakers—including Suozzi—who said they didn't approve. Axios also reported that some Democrats hadn't ruled out voting yes on the censure vote.
"Some of these Democrats have more smoke for Rep. Al Green than the man trying to cut Social Security and Medicaid," wrote Turner in response to that reporting.
Qasim Rashid, a human rights lawyer, had this to say about the vote: "Bad enough they don't have the courage to do anything more than hold up a silly sign, but to tear down the one Dem willing to get into Good Trouble to oppose fascism? Spineless." During Trump's address, other Democrats sat through the speech and raised signs with messages such as "Save Medicaid" and "Musk Steals."
The Nation's national affairs correspondent Joan Walsh denounced the 10 Democrats for their vote, but she praised the fact that some Democrats sang "We Shall Overcome," in an act of solidarity with Green, while he stood in the well of the House chamber as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) read him the censure resolution.
She called the whole episode "the worst and the best of the House Democratic caucus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Push Trump AG for Answers on 'Illegal Quid Pro Quo' With Eric Adams
"The DOJ has strayed far from its principles of equal justice under the law by dismissing a serious criminal public corruption matter in exchange for assistance with the White House's immigration priorities."
Mar 03, 2025
Senior House Democrats on Monday demanded that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi hand over information about the Trump administration's "lawless order that federal prosecutors move to dismiss the public corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a corrupt bargain to buy the mayor's obedience in immigration enforcement."
Calling on Bondi to "immediately end the cover-ups and retaliations within the Department of Justice (DOJ)," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) wrote in a letter to the attorney general:
Last month, troubling reports emerged about the Trump administration's demand that federal prosecutors move to dismiss the serious public corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a blatant and illegal quid pro quo to secure the mayor's loyal assistance in executing the Trump administration's mass arrest and deportation policies. Not only did the Department of Justice attempt to pressure career prosecutors into carrying out this illegal quid pro quo, it appears that acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was personally engaged in a cover-up by destroying evidence and retaliating against career prosecutors who refused to follow his illegal and unethical orders.
Adams had faced five federal felony charges including alleged wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. According to a September 2024 indictment, the Democrat "sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him" as it became clear in 2021 that he would be elected.
On February 14, Trump's DOJ formally moved to drop the charges against Adams without prejudice, meaning they could be brought again. This prompted the resignation of seven federal prosecutors, and, on February 17, four of Adams' eight deputy mayors.
Raskin's office said Monday that federal prosecutors' resignation letters, "including those by Danielle Sassoon, a staunch conservative, former law clerk to [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Antonin Scalia, and Trump's interim United States attorney for [the Southern District of New York], and Hagan Scotten, a former law clerk to both [Supreme Court] Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, revealed a stunning account of a corrupt bargain the DOJ struck with Mayor Adams, as well as an attempted cover-up."
Sassoon described a January 31 meeting she and colleagues attended with Bove at which "Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the [DOJ's] enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed," and added that Bove "admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."
Subsequently, Adams reportedly told New York City officials to refrain from criticizing Trump. After meeting with Trump "border czar" Tom Homan, Adams on February 13 announced an executive order to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to operate at Rikers Island, New York City's largest jail, for the first time in decades.
The following day Adams and Homan appeared together on Fox News. Although the two men were seen laughing it up, Homan said that if the mayor didn't "come through" for the Trump administration, "we won't be sitting on this couch, I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?"
Thinly veiled Homan warning to Adams: “If he doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, Where the hell is the agreement we came to” pic.twitter.com/Pq0msJXZGb
— Emily Ngo (@emilyngo) February 14, 2025
Raskin and Crockett are seeking all notes related to the January 31 meeting, all communications between the White House and DOJ regarding the Adams case, and other information.
"For our justice system to function, 'legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence,'" the lawmakers asserted. "As Ms. Sassoon said in her letter, our system depends on prosecutors pursuing justice 'without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office.' Here, the DOJ has strayed far from its principles of equal justice under the law by dismissing a serious criminal public corruption matter in exchange for assistance with the White House's immigration priorities."
"Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the Trump DOJ allowing criminals to go free—whether they assaulted police officers, sold drugs to the community, or are corrupt politicians—as long as the criminals pledge loyalty to President Trump," the pair added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Hand Power 'Back to the People,' House Dems Propose Amendment to Reverse Citizens United
"In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Feb 13, 2025
With the impact of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case becoming clearer by the day as billionaire megadonor Elon Musk spearheads the reshaping of the federal government, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Thursday led more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers in introducing a constitutional amendment that would reverse the pivotal ruling.
The Washington Democrat has introduced the We the People Amendment in previous years, but she noted that this year she is proposing the measure after "a billionaire [paid] millions to buy a seat as Shadow President," referring to the more than $270 million Musk spent on President Donald Trump's campaign last year—an effort that promptly made him $170 billion richer and has resulted in new government contracts for his companies and his leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Corporations are not people and money is not speech," said Jayapal. "In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country... My We the People Amendment hands power back to the people by finally ending corporate constitutional rights, reversing Citizens United, and ensuring that our democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations."
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down long-held rules on corporate "independent" spending that doesn't go directly to a candidate or political party, eliminating restrictions for money that flows to campaigns through super political action committees (PACs) which purport to be separate from candidates.
The We the People Amendment—which is not supported by any Republican lawmakers—would specify that constitutional rights apply to people, not corporations, "and that artificial entities have no constitutional rights," said Jayapal's office.
It would also mandate that federal, state, and local governments require public disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures.
As Brendan Fischer wrote at Rolling Stone last month, Musk's "astonishing influence over Trump and the Republican Party is not merely a function of his wealth, his celebrity, or his ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It is attributable to his pouring of at least $277 million into super PACs last year, which purchased enormous influence."
Cole Bennett, legislative co-director of the advocacy group Move to Amend, applauded Jayapal's understanding "that the changes she and many of her colleagues support to advance healthcare, expand economic justice, ensure a livable world, and promote real democracy are incredibly difficult but necessary."
"This is especially true given the unjustifiable Supreme Court decisions declaring corporations as entities with many of the same constitutional rights as human persons and that money spent in elections is equivalent to First Amendment-protected free speech," said Bennett. "The exponential growth of corporate power and corrupting political influence from huge sums of money flooding elections can only be solved with a systemic solution that is equivalent in scale to these systemic problems—the We the People Amendment, which will end all corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech."
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