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
jared huffman
Fury as Council of Trump Loyalists Votes to Steamroll Historic Preservation Law
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard."
Jul 27, 2026
Preservationists are reacting with fury after allies of President Donald Trump moved to weaken federal restrictions on construction projects built on historic sites.
Trump-appointed members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on Friday voted move forward with rules that would weaken Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires the federal government to both evaluate how construction projects might impact protected places and to consult with people and groups affected by such projects, including Tribal Nations.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Monday ripped Trump for stacking the council with loyalists who appear determined to "tear down the safeguards that protect America's history so he and his billionaire friends can build whatever they want, wherever they want."
"Right now, a developer has to stop and listen before paving over a tribal burial ground, a Revolutionary War battlefield, or the church where your grandparents were married," Huffman added. "Trump's council wants to end that and cut tribal nations, states, counties, towns, and communities out of that conversation entirely."
Greg Werkheiser, founding partner at the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners, said in an interview with NPR published on Friday that the vote amounted to an "attempt to gut historic preservation protections."
"There are millions of these sites in this country," Werkheiser emphasized, "and all of them are made less protected by this effort by the Trump administration."
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) on Monday denounced the council's vote, describing it as "a significant step back for historic preservation, community participation, and the inclusive design processes that serve the public good."
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard," said the AIA. "These revisions place approximately 1.4 million historic sites at greater risk by shifting decisions away from the communities where they are rooted. The revisions make public comment optional rather than mandatory, narrow the definition of historic property, and shift decision-making authority almost entirely to federal agencies—sidelining state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, tribes, and local governments."
Michaela Pavlat, manager for the National Parks Conservation Association Indigenous Partnerships Program, said the Friday vote was a "calculated, yet unwarranted attack on tribal consultation, historic preservation, and the regulations that have protected the places that tell our country’s diverse stories."
Gussie Lord, managing attorney for tribal partnerships at Earthjustice, noted that the National Historic Preservation Act "has not slowed the pace of new roads and power plants in this country, but it has given Tribes a seat at the table and preserved irreplaceable Indigenous sites from destruction."
"What happens when entire landscapes are bulldozed without a thought to their cultural and historic importance?" Lord asked. "No one should support cutting Tribes out of the decision-making process for projects that impact their rights and sacred places."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Oligarchy on Full Display’: GOP Lawmakers Block Effort to Subpoena Donald Trump Jr. Over Suspicious Pentagon Loan
"If there is nothing to hide, then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital?"
Mar 26, 2026
A Democratic member of the US House is calling out her Republican colleagues after they thwarted her attempt to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. to answer questions related to his financial stake in a company that scored a suspiciously timed $620 million loan from the US Department of Defense last year.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) on Wednesday tried to force the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to vote on subpoenaing Trump Jr. to testify about his venture capital firm's investment in Vulcan Elements, a startup that specializes in producing rare-earth magnets used in drones, radars, and other pieces of military equipment.
According to CNBC, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the subcommittee chairman, moved the committee into an hour-long recess immediately after Dexter motioned to subpoena the president's eldest son. After returning from the recess, Republicans on the subcommittee voted to table the resolution.
Dexter, however, vowed that this wasn't the end of the story.
"If there is nothing to hide," she said, "then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display, and I’m committed to ending corruption."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Resources Committee, told CNBC that investigations into Trump Jr. potentially using his father's presidency to enrich himself are "not going away."
"You can do these moves, but you cannot hide, you cannot dodge accountability," Huffman emphasized.
The Financial Times reported in December that 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023 that brought Trump Jr. in as a partner in 2024, bought an equity stake in Vulcan Elements, months before it was awarded the $620 million loan by the Pentagon.
Revelations about the Vulcan Elements contract came just weeks after the Florida-based drone startup Unusual Machines, in which Trump Jr. has held a $4 million stake, received a contract from the US Army to manufacture 3,500 drone motors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrats Blast Trump's Antifa Designation and Terrorism Memo Targeting Critics
"The sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
Oct 16, 2025
Over 30 Democrats in the US House of Representatives wrote to President Donald Trump on Thursday to condemn his designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and a related memorandum targeting the Republican's opponents.
Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) led the letter, which builds on criticism that has mounted since late last month, when Trump issued the executive order against antifa—even though the nationwide anti-fascist movement has no central organizational structure or leaders.
Days later, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which, as the letter details, "directs federal officials to crack down on organized political violence, which you define to include 'anti-Christianity,' 'anti-capitalism,' and 'hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.'"
The lawmakers wrote that "while protecting public safety and countering genuine threats are essential responsibilities of government, the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
"Regardless of whether the president agrees with someone's political views, the Constitution guarantees their right to speak and assemble peacefully," they stressed. They also noted that "neither the memo nor the executive order clearly defines 'antifa' as a specific entity. Instead, the executive order conflates nonviolent protest and activism with doxing and violent behavior."
"While the threat of political violence demands vigilance, your administration must not use this moment to undermine the very constitutional and democratic principles we are sworn to uphold," they concluded. "These actions are illegal, and we demand you immediately rescind both the memorandum and the executive order. We stand ready to take legislative action should you fail to do so."
The letter, which its organizers began circulating earlier this month, was sent to Trump ahead of a second round of "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday. Demonstrators intend to take to the streets in over 2,500 US communities to denounce the president's unprecedented and accelerating attacks on democracy. A key ally of Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), on Wednesday called for passing his bill to "prosecute" funders of the rallies.
In addition to dozens of House Democrats—including lawmakers from Illinois and Oregon, where Trump has deployed immigration agents and tried to federalize the National Guard, sparking court battles—the letter is endorsed by American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amnesty International, Council for Global Equality, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Immigration Equality, MPact Global Action, National Women's Law Center, and Secular Coalition for America.
The order and memo are just part of the Trump administration's broad crackdown on dissent, which has also included trying to deport foreign students who criticize Israel's US-backed genocide in the Gaza Strip, cutting reporters off from the Pentagon for refusing to sign a "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, and bullying Disney-owned ABC into temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': Trump IRS Says Nonprofit Churches Can Make Political Endorsements
"Holy shit, a real masks-off moment," said one professor. "The divide between church and state is already falling. The divide between church and political group will disappear."
Jul 08, 2025
"This is another dark day for our democracy."
That's what American Humanist Association (AHA) executive director Fish Stark said in a Tuesday statement responding to a move from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to allow houses of worship to endorse political candidates.
When former President Lyndon B. Johnson was a senator, he introduced a provision of the U.S. tax code that bans organizations from participating or intervening in campaigns for public office as a condition for keeping their nonprofit, tax-exempt status.
The National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America and two Christian churches—Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom—wanted a federal court in Texas to strike down the Johnson Amendment. Instead, according to a Monday filing from the plaintiffs and Internal Revenue Service intended to settle the case, the IRS created a formal exception for houses of worship.
Noting the definitions of participate and intervene, the filing states that "bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates."
"Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted," the document continues.
R.I.P. The Johnson Amendment, 1954-2025
[image or embed]
— Robert Downen (@robertdownen.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 12:16 PM
While the court could reject the plan laid out by the Trump IRS and plaintiffs in this case, observers responded to the settlement document by declaring the 1954 Johnson Amendment "essentially overturned" and "effectively DEAD."
Like many critics of the decision, the court filing acknowledges that its new interpretation "is in keeping with the IRS' treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice," as the agency "generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services."
Also highlighting that "it's been clear that many churches were both collecting tax deductions while engaging in partisan politics, so this merely formalizes the practice," Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, wrote on social media, "Holy shit, a real masks-off moment."
"There is already a problem of political operations pretending to be churches," he added, citing 2022 ProPublica reporting. "The divide between church and state is already falling. The divide between church and political group will disappear."
Christa Brown—whose memoir Baptistland tells the story of abuse she endured in her Texas childhood church—said that "churches were already doing this but now it's going to get a lot worse. Bad for the country, dangerous for democracy, and terrible for the separation of church and state. Inevitably, heaps of dark money will now get funneled through churches to influence elections."
AHA's Stark issued a similar warning, saying that "the Johnson Amendment, though weakened over the years by lax enforcement, is the small but mighty dam standing in the way of a torrent of dark money influencing our elections. Now that the Trump administration has opened the door to pastors and houses of worship explicitly backing candidates for office, all bets are off."
"There will be little to stop billionaires from funneling money through churches to buy our elections—and they will get a tax write-off for doing it, all subsidized by American taxpayers," Stark continued. "Weakening the Johnson Amendment to consolidate political power has long been a priority for Christian nationalists—and now they have the megaphone they've been waiting for for decades."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State president and CEO Rachel Laser said Tuesday that "the Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a brazen attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics. It's President Trump and his Christian nationalist allies' signature move: exploiting religion to boost their own political power."
"For more than 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has reflected the will of the American people, the majority of whom want to protect the integrity of our elections and shield our houses of worship from the corrupting influences of partisan politicking," Laser added, urging the court "to reject the administration's latest gambit to rewrite the law through the judicial system."
Trump’s IRS just declared churches can endorse political candidates from the pulpit.This move upends a core protection for church-state separation, AND erodes the freedom and independence of churches.www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/u...
[image or embed]
— Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons (@guthriegf.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, also criticized the "deeply concerning" court filing for "furthering an assault on the bedrock principle that charitable organizations must remain nonpartisan in law, fact, and purpose in order to serve their missions and communities."
"This action—long sought by President Trump—is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws," Yentel argued. "The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views."
Some political leaders also weighed in. Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said that "this is really bad. The merger of tax-exempt conservative churches with the MAGA Republican Party is complete. It started with endless rightwing attacks on the IRS, leading to partisan political operations like Family Research Council posing as 'churches,' and now this. American taxpayers are now subsidizing both partisan (mainly GOP) politics and religion."
California state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-25) concluded that "if churches can make political endorsements and make political donations, they can pay taxes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Flood Deaths Rise, Texas Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by DOGE-Gutted National Weather Service
"Experts warned for months that drastic and sudden cuts at the National Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability and endanger lives during the storm season," said one critic.
Jul 05, 2025
As catastrophic flooding left scores of people dead and missing in Texas Hill Country and President Donald Trump celebrated signing legislation that will eviscerate every aspect of federal efforts to address the climate emergency, officials in the Lone Star State blasted the National Weather Service—one of many agencies gutted by the Department of Government Efficiency—for issuing what they said were faulty forecasts that some observers blamed for the flood's high death toll.
The Associated Press reported Saturday that flooding caused by a powerful storm killed at least 27 people, with dozens more—including as many as 25 girls from a summer camp along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County—missing after fast-moving floodwaters rose 26 feet (8 meters) in less than an hour before dawn on Friday, sweeping away people and pets along with homes, vehicles, farm and wild animals, and property.
"Everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
"The camp was completely destroyed," Elinor Lester, 13, one of hundreds of campers at Camp Mystic, told the AP. "A helicopter landed and started taking people away. It was really scary."
Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said during a press conference in Kerrville late Friday that 24 people were confirmed dead, including children. Other officials said that 240 people had been rescued.
Although the National Weather Service on Thursday issued a broad flood watch for the area, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd—noting that the NWS predicted 3-6 inches of rain for the Concho Valley and 4-8 inches for the Hill Country—told reporters during a press conference earlier Friday that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts."
After media reports & experts warned for months that drastic & sudden cuts at the Nat Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability & endanger lives during the storm season, TX officials blame an inaccurate forecast by NWS for the deadly results of the flood.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM
"Listen, everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service," Kidd reiterated. "You all got it; you're all in media. You got that forecast. It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice also said during the press conference that the storm "dumped more rain than what was forecasted" into two forks of the Guadalupe River.
Kerr County judge Rob Kelly told CBS News: "We had no reason to believe that this was gonna be anything like what's happened here. None whatsoever."
Since January, the NWS—a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—has reduced its workforce by nearly 600 people as a direct result of staffing cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, as part of Trump's mission to eviscerate numerous federal agencies.
This policy is in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that calls for "dismantling" NOAA. Trump has also called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arguing that states should shoulder most of the burden of extreme weather preparation and response. Shutting down FEMA would require an act of Congress.
Many of the fired NWS staffers were specialized climate scientists and weather forecasters. At the time of the firings, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, was among those who warned of the cuts' deadly consequences.
"People nationwide depend on NOAA for free, accurate forecasts, severe weather alerts, and emergency information," Huffman said. "Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives."
Writing for the Texas Observer, Henry D. Jacoby—co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change—warned that "crucial data gathering systems are at risk."
"Federal ability to warn the public is being degraded," he added, "and it is a public service no state can replace."
On Friday, Trump put presidential pen to congressional Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a $4 trillion tax and spending package that effectively erases the landmark climate and clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act signed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022.
As Inside Climate News noted of the new law:
It stomps out incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and efficient appliances. It phases out tax credits for wind and solar energy. It opens up federal land and water for oil and gas drilling and increases its profitability, while creating new federal support for coal. It ends the historic investment in poor and minority communities that bear a disproportionate pollution burden—money that the Trump administration was already refusing to spend. It wipes out any spending on greening the federal government.
Furthermore, as MeidasNews editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski noted Saturday, "rural areas hit hardest by catastrophic storms are the same areas now in danger of losing their hospitals after Trump's Medicaid cuts just passed" as part of the budget reconciliation package.
At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who once attributed California wildfires to Jewish-controlled space lasers—announced Saturday that she is "introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity."
"It will be a felony offense," she explained. "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fix Our Forests Act and the Politics of Wildfire
Logging interests and the U.S. Forest Service have a history of using the wildfire threat to create “emergency” authority to bypass environmental reviews and curtail judicial oversight.
Mar 18, 2025
When on January 23 of this year, California Senator Jarred Huffman stood on the House floor to voice his opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act, or FOFA,, he bitterly noted how the bill had been rushed to a vote without normal consultation.
The reason for the rush was obvious. Fires were raging in the suburbs of Los Angeles and FOFA’s proponents wanted to capitalize on the tragedy to pitch their bill, which in the name of wildfire prevention exempts vast acreage of backcountry logging from ordinary scientific and judicial oversight. The irony is that the LA fires had no connection with forests whatsoever. They began as grass and brush fires near populated areas, which, fanned by ferocious Santa Ana winds, quickly spread building to building, with disastrous results.
The irony widens when you consider that in 2024, Huffman, along with California Republican Jay Obernolte, introduced a bill that actually would help communities deal with fire. Called the Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act, it proposed $1 billion per year to help communities harden homes and critical infrastructure while also creating defensive space around their perimeters. The bill was introduced this year yet again, six days after FOFA was rushed to a vote, but it hasn’t even been given a hearing by the House Natural Resources Committee. That committee is chaired by Oklahoma Republican Bruce Westerman, who, it turns out, is the chief sponsor of the Fix Our Forests Act.
Once again, it’s the same old formula: slash citizen oversight in the name of wildfire reduction.
Do you see the political convolutions at work here? A very real fire danger facing communities is used to promote a bill focused primarily on back country “fuels reduction,” far from such communities, while the Huffman-Obernolte bill, that focuses on the communities themselves, gets nowhere. The process not only puts millions of acres of mature and old-growth forests at risk of massive “mechanical treatments,” it leaves the immediate fire dangers faced by communities largely unaddressed.
This political formula is nothing new. Twenty two years ago, then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which also sought environmental restrictions for expanded logging under the pretext of preventing wildfires like those in California. The concern for conservationists was the same then as it is now—logging interests and the U.S. Forest Service using the wildfire threat to create “emergency” authority to bypass environmental reviews and curtail judicial oversight, providing easier access to mature and old-growth forests, while doing little in the way of home hardening and community protection.
Proponents of the Fix our Forests Act would counter that there are provisions within the bill that help coordinate grant applications for communities. That’s well and good, but falls far short of what the Huffman-Obernolte bill provides, which not only includes major funding to harden homes and critical infrastructure, but helps with early detection and evacuation planning and initiates Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience plans for insurance certification.
Further, there is a plethora of research that contradicts the notion that fuels reduction and forest thinning protects communities from wildfire. In fact, intensive forest management is shown to often increase fire severity. Meanwhile, the industry position that forest protection increases fire risk doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, years of mechanical treatments have done little to solve the problem, while doing tremendous ecological damage.
Now we have President Donald Trump’s all-caps Executive Order: “IMMEDIATE EXPANSION OF AMERICAN TIMBER PRODUCTION.” Once again, it’s the same old formula: slash citizen oversight in the name of wildfire reduction. The order calls for action to “reduce unnecessarily lengthy processes and associated costs related to administrative approvals for timber production, forest management, and wildfire risk reduction treatments,” while putting community safety up as the justification. From the first paragraph: “Furthermore, as recent disasters demonstrate, forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects can save American lives and communities.” Only they don’t. The only things shown to save lives and communities are the types of actions put forth by the Community Protections and Wildfire Resilience act.
The Democratic Party has a history of protecting public lands and a constituency that expects such protection. A similar thing can be said of certain moderate Republicans, where a courageous spirit prevails when it comes to environmental protection. If there ever was a time to remember that tradition and that spirit, it would be now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Reps. Thompson, Huffman Served in Class Action Suit Over Gaza Genocide
California residents' lawsuit accuses the Democrats of violating their constitutional rights by voting to use their taxes "for the unlawful purpose of being complicit in genocide."
Jan 02, 2025
Two Democratic congressmen from Northern California were served this week with legal documents in a class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of their constituents who argue that the lawmakers illegally forced them into complicity with Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza.
Taxpayers Against Genocide (TAG), a group of more than 600 constituents of Reps. Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman represented by the firm Szeto-Wong Law, said it delivered a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, where it was received by Deputy General Counsel for the House of Representatives Todd Tatelman.
As Common Dreams reported, the lawsuit was filed last month in San Francisco.
TAG said in a statement Wednesday that Thompson and Huffman "illegally abused their tax and spend authority when they voted to allocate $26.38 billion in military aid to Israel on April 20, 2024," and that by doing so, they violated the U.S. Constitution, the Genocide Convention, and federal laws.
According to the lawsuit:
Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman exceeded the constitutional limitations on their tax and spend authority by voting to authorize the funding of the Israeli military when they were aware, or should have been aware, that the Israeli military was committing genocide in Gaza, which made their votes a violation of customary international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide. Furthermore, defendants' votes violated multiple other laws and policies, including the Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign security forces that have committed a gross violation of human rights; the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act, which prohibit assistance to any country in which the government engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and require the advancement of U.S. foreign policy interests consistent with internationally recognized human rights; and the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, which prohibits U.S. weapons transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international law. Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to have their taxes collected for only lawful purposes have been and continue to be violated by defendants' votes to use plaintiffs' taxes for the unlawful purpose of being complicit in genocide.
"The moral injuries that I and countless other constituents of Rep. Huffman have suffered resulting from his vote to arm the genocide in Gaza are immeasurable," plaintiff Carol Bloom said on Wednesday.
Judy Talaugon—a plaintiff and an Indigenous elder and activist in Sonoma County—said: "Palestinian children are all our children, deserving of our advocacy and support. And their liberation is the catalyst for systemic change for the betterment of us all."
In an interview with CounterPunch published Wednesday, plaintiff Ellen P. said that although Huffman did hold a November 2023 meeting with members of the group Humboldt for Palestine, activists in attendance left disappointed.
"I was aghast at Huffman's response to this thoughtful and heartfelt plea from his constituents," she said. "He repeatedly interrupted speakers, admonished their use of language—even debating with us about the definition of 'genocide' and 'apartheid'—and tried to lecture us rather than listen to us."
"He made it very clear he was not at all interested in anything we had to say and that he is a committed Zionist," she added.
Huffman has not responded publicly to the lawsuit.
Thompson's office responded last month to the suit in a statement asserting that the congressman "understands that it has been the civilian population that has paid the cost of Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel and he remains gravely concerned about the scale of civilian loss in this war."
However, the statement added that "achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won't be accomplished by filing a lawsuit."
United Nations experts, human rights groups, jurists, academics, activists, and others argue that Israel's policies and actions during its 454-day assault on Gaza fit the definition of genocide as described in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, more commonly called the Genocide Convention.
Backed by over two dozen mostly Global South nations and regional blocs, South Africa is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The U.S., which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover including United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution vetoes, is one of around 10 countries—most of them in the Global North—opposing the case.
The year 2025 began with more Israeli killing of Palestinians, including a New Year's Day airstrike massacre at the Jabalia refugee camp that left at least 15 people, including four children and a woman, dead, and a Thursday attack on an Israeli-designated "safe zone" in southern Gaza that reportedly killed at least 11 people, including three children.
According to Gaza officials, at least 45,581 Palestinians have been killed and more than 108,000 others wounded by Israeli attacks, with at least 11,000 people missing and believed dead and buried beneath rubble. The overwhelming majority of Gazans have been forcibly displaced, and hundreds of thousands are suffering starvation and sickness exacerbated by Israel's "complete siege" of the embattled enclave.
TAG plaintiff Norman Solomon wrote in a Thursday opinion piece for Common Dreams that he whilethat he certainly does not "expect the courts to halt the U.S. policies that have been enabling the horrors in Gaza to go on," the unprecedented lawsuit "makes a clear case for the moral revulsion that so many Americans feel about the culpability of the U.S. government."
As Maria Barakat, a Palestinian-Lebanese American plaintiff in the case said on Thursday, "This class action is only the beginning of the people's exercise of power against the violence of the American government and our refusal to be complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Do We Hope to Achieve by Filing Suit Against US Lawmakers Over Gaza Genocide?
Organizing together under the name Taxpayers Against Genocide, constituents served notice that no amount of rhetoric could make funding of genocide anything other than repugnant.
Jan 02, 2025
On the last day of 2024, the deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives formally accepted delivery of a civil summons for two congressmembers from Northern California. More than 600 constituents of Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson have signed on as plaintiffs in a class action accusing them of helping to arm the Israeli military in violation of “international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide.”
Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, it conveys widespread anger and anguish about the ongoing civilian carnage in Gaza that taxpayers have continued to bankroll.
By a wide margin, most Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel while the Gaza war persists. But Huffman and Thompson voted to approve $26.38 billion in military aid for Israel last April, long after the nonstop horrors for civilians in Gaza were evident.
Back in February -- two months before passage of the enormous military aid package -- both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that, in the words of the lawsuit, “the Israeli government was systematically starving the people of Gaza through cutting off aid, water, and electricity, by bombing and military occupation, all underwritten by the provision of U.S. military aid and weapons.”
When the known death toll passed 40,000 last summer, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights said: “Most of the dead are women and children. This unimaginable situation is overwhelmingly due to recurring failures by the Israeli Defense Forces to comply with the rules of war.” He described as “deeply shocking” the “scale of the Israeli military’s destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship.”
No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step.
On Dec. 4, Amnesty International released a 296-page report concluding that Israel has been committing genocide “brazenly, continuously and with total impunity” -- with the “specific intent to destroy Palestinians,” engaging in “prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention.”
Two weeks later, on the same day the lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Francisco, Human Rights Watch released new findings that “Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide.”
Responding to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Thompson said that “achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won’t be accomplished by filing a lawsuit.” But for well over a year, to no avail, the plaintiffs and many other constituents have been urging him and Huffman to help protect civilians by ending their support for the U.S. pipeline of weapons and ammunition to Israel.
Enabled by that pipeline, the slaughter has continued in Gaza while the appropriators on Capitol Hill work in a kind of bubble. Letters, emails, phone calls, office visits, protests and more have not pierced that bubble. The lawsuit is an effort to break through the routine of indifference.
Like many other congressional Democrats, Huffman and Thompson have prided themselves on standing up against the contempt for facts that Donald Trump and his cohorts flaunt. Yet refusal to acknowledge the facts of civilian decimation in Gaza, with a direct U.S. role, is an extreme form of denial.
“Over the last 14 months I have watched elected officials remain completely unresponsive despite the public’s demands to end the genocide,” said Laurel Krause, a Mendocino County resident who is one of the lawsuit plaintiffs.
Another plaintiff, Leslie Angeline, a Marin County resident who ended a 31-day hunger strike when the lawsuit was filed, said: “I wake each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn’t for my government’s partnership with the Israeli government, this couldn’t continue.”
Such passionate outlooks are a far cry from the words offered by members of Congress who routinely appear to take pride in seeming calm as they discuss government policies. But if their own children’s lives were at stake rather than the lives of Palestinian children in Gaza, they would hardly be so calm. A huge empathy gap is glaring.
In the words of plaintiff Judy Talaugon, a Native American activist in Sonoma County, “Palestinian children are all our children, deserving of our advocacy and support. And their liberation is the catalyst for systemic change for the betterment of us all.”
As a plaintiff, I certainly don’t expect the courts to halt the U.S. policies that have been enabling the horrors in Gaza to go on. But our lawsuit makes a clear case for the moral revulsion that so many Americans feel about the culpability of the U.S. government.
To hardboiled political pros, the heartfelt goal of putting a stop to the arming of the Israeli military for genocide is apt to seem quixotic and dreamy. But it’s easy for politicians to underestimate feelings of moral outrage. As James Baldwin wrote, “Though we do not wholly believe it yet, the interior life is a real life, and the intangible dreams of people have a tangible effect on the world.”
Organizing together under the name Taxpayers Against Genocide, constituents served notice that no amount of rhetoric could make funding of genocide anything other than repugnant. Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson are the first members of Congress to face such a lawsuit. They won’t be the last.
In recent days, people from many parts of the United States have contacted Taxpayers Against Genocide (via classactionagainstgenocide@proton.me) to see the full lawsuit and learn about how they can file one against their own member of Congress.
No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step for exposing -- and organizing against -- the power of the warfare state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented' Lawsuit Targets 2 US Lawmakers for Backing Israeli Military Aid
"This class action is only the beginning of the people's exercise of power against the violence of the American government," said one plaintiff.
Dec 20, 2024
More than 500 California residents on Thursday took the latest legal action against U.S. leaders in an effort to stop the government's support for Israel's assault on Gaza, with taxpayers represented by two Democratic U.S. House members filing a class action lawsuit against the lawmakers for voting in favor of Israeli military aid.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by the law firm Szeto-Wong Law, live in 10 counties in Northern California and are represented by Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson.
The specific legal tactic being used by the plaintiffs is "unprecedented," according to the group Taxpayers Against Genocide, and hinges on Huffman and Thompson's votes in favor of the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act in April.
The funding package allocated $26.28 billion in military aid to Israel, which at the time was six months into its bombardment of Gaza and a near-total blockade on humanitarian aid that was pushing the enclave's population of 2.3 million people toward starvation.
Now, Israel has been attacking Gaza for 440 days, and more than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed since the onslaught began. At least 77 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks on Thursday, the same day the class action lawsuit was filed and Doctors Without Borders published a report that detailed how the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have imposed "apocalyptic conditions" on the enclave and how humanitarian workers have seen "clear signs of ethnic cleansing as Palestinians are forcibly displaced, trapped, and bombed."
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argued that Huffman and Thompson's votes in favor of billions of dollars for the IDF abused the lawmakers' "tax and spend" authority and "illegally forced their constituents into being complicit in genocide."
Huffman and Thompson voted for the funding package, the plaintiffs noted, months after the International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, finding that Israel's actions had threatened Palestinians' right to be protected from genocide. The case has proceeded for ongoing litigation since the preliminary ruling was announced.
The votes were also taken weeks after Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, issued an extensive report that found Israel was committing acts of genocide in Gaza.
"I trusted Congressman Huffman to call for a cease-fire and to demand that the U.S. follow our own laws in addition to international law," said Robie Tenorio, one of the plaintiffs. "But despite overwhelming documented and corroborated evidence, Congressman Huffman voted in April 2024 to send Israel more offensive weapons, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers."
In March, a month before the vote, Democratic lawmakers urged President Joe Biden to enforce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act—Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military aid to any country that is blocking U.S. humanitarian assistance.
The administration threatened in October to cut off military aid within one month if Israel did not prove that it was allowing in sufficient food, water, medicine, and other relief, but the U.S. State Department did not follow through on the threat despite the U.N.'s finding that conditions had not improved.
In January, the Center for Constitutional Rights sued Biden and members of his Cabinet on behalf of several Palestinian groups and individuals, accusing them of failing to prevent genocide in Gaza. The case was dismissed in July.
The lawsuit filed on Thursday argues that Huffman and Thompson violated the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and U.S. federal laws.
Norman Solomon, co-founder of the grassroots advocacy group RootsAction, said at a press conference on Thursday that Huffman has consistently said he supports U.S. military aid to Israel because he "opposes antisemitism."
"As a Jewish-American I find that kind of rationale disgusting, outrageous, and sickening," said Solomon.
Leslie Angeline, a plaintiff from Marin County, California and an organizer with the peace group CodePink, wrote at Common Dreams on Thursday about her hunger strike in protest of U.S. support for Israel, which she ended as the lawsuit was announced.
"I want to tell you what 30 days with no food does to a person, and my experience is made easier by the fact that I have a roof over my head, access to clean water, and a certainty that I won't have to flee my home at any moment," Angeline wrote. "The women my age in Gaza are not given the same luxuries."
"I wake up each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn't for my government's partnership with the Israeli government this couldn't continue. Our government is sending billions upon billions of our tax dollars to slaughter innocent children, mothers and fathers, entire families with bombs and artillery funded by our country," she continued. "I understand that 'my trauma' is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza must be suffering. I can't even imagine the horrors they're being forced to live through or die from."
Maria Barakat, a Palestinian-Lebanese American and plaintiff from Sonoma County, said it was significant that hundreds of Californians "feel empowered by the ability to take meaningful action."
"This class action is only the beginning of the people's exercise of power against the violence of the American government," said Barakat, "and our refusal to be complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
My 31-Day Hunger Strike for Gaza
I was desperate for this genocide and ethnic cleaning of Palestine to end, so I took a stand and put my body on the line.
Dec 19, 2024
When Northern Gaza was placed under a complete siege, the Biden Administration issued a warning that if conditions didn’t improve within 30 days, he would stop weapons shipments to Israel. At the time of the announcement, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians faced imminent starvation because the Israeli military was blocking trucks of humanitarian aid from entering Northern Gaza. As children and their parents either starved to death or suffocated under the rubble of their homes that were deliberately bombed – Biden told them to wait thirty days. When the thirty days were up, Israel correctly called Biden’s bluff. They knew he wasn’t going to stop sending weapons, and they were right.
I began this hunger strike to demand that my government end the siege on Gaza. It’s clear to the entire world that Israel acts with full backing from the United States and both governments are responsible for the death and human suffering happening in Palestine.
The people of Gaza were starving before Biden’s 30 day warning. They faced famine even before October 7th. People who defend this genocide will often note that there was peace on October 6th, 2023. But on October 6th, there was an Israeli imposed blockade that only allowed in the minimal calorie intake per Palestinian every single day – with no intention of making sure it reached each of the two million people that resided in Gaza. On top of that deprivation, Israel waged sporadic wars on the people of Gaza every few years. Nearly a month has gone by since Israel called Biden’s bluff – the arms are still flowing into Tel Aviv with American flags stamped into the bomb casings and the people of Gaza are still starving to death. When the very few aid trucks do arrive to feed the starving population, Israel kills them while they stand in line for food.
It’s clear to the entire world that Israel acts with full backing from the United States and both governments are responsible for the death and human suffering happening in Palestine.
I want to tell you what 30 days with no food does to a person, and my experience is made easier by the fact that I have a roof over my head, access to clean water, and a certainty that I won’t have to flee my home at any moment depending on the whim of the IOF evacuation orders. The women my age in Gaza are not given the same luxuries. I’m an Elder, a mother and a long time Peace and Social Justice activist. I’ve lived in California for over forty years, mostly in Sonoma County, but also in San Francisco and presently in Marin County.
In the first days of my hunger strike, I felt really tired and the hunger pangs were intense. Now they occur only several times a day. My body aches and as of today I’ve lost seventeen pounds. I’m constantly cold and my resistance and immunity are low. I learned yesterday from a dear friend and sister Palestinian Activist — something I didn’t know about hunger strikes— that after days of starvation, beginning to eat food again could kill you. Your body isn’t used to processing even a little bit of food. My friend Hazami, who ended her hunger strike this week, ended up in the hospital. So, I wonder what would happen to a person who hasn’t had enough food for months and months? What happens to them when they have no hospital to go to? What happens when the remaining hospital they do find gets bombed? Or when their doctors get executed? I know I will be able to eat again, but what if I was a child and I had no idea when food might be coming? How scared would I be? Hunger isn’t just hunger in Gaza, it's grief and suffering compounded a hundred times. It’s a form of torture.
I feel I’ve been living in a traumatized state for over a year. I cry everyday, multiple times a day, my heart is beyond broken, it’s shattered. I wake up each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn’t for my government’s partnership with the Israeli government this couldn’t continue. Our government is sending billions upon billions of our tax dollars to slaughter innocent children, mothers and fathers, entire families with bombs and artillery funded by our country.
I understand that “my trauma” is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza must be suffering. I can’t even imagine the horrors they’re being forced to live through or die from.
I’d gone to Washington DC on Oct 3rd wanting to work for diplomacy in the war in Ukraine. When Oct 7th happened, I decided to stay until we had a ceasefire in Gaza. I was there for seven long months, going to Capitol Hill, the White House and the State Department everyday trying and failing to get a Ceasefire. I came home broken. Last summer I joined the Handala in Lisbon, part of the Freedom Flotilla that is trying to break the Siege of Gaza. There are ships with 5,500 tons of humanitarian aid stuck in Istanbul, because the Turkish government has succumbed to Israeli and US pressure not to allow the ships to sail! The US government is not allowing much needed humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, but then spends millions on building a port that was never going to work. Our government’s hypocrisy is soul crushing.
I was desperate for this genocide and ethnic cleaning of Palestine to end, so I took a stand and put my body on the line. Today, Thursday Dec. 19th, is the beginning of the 31st day of my hunger strike/fast for Gaza. Even now my Representative in Congress, Jared Huffman, refuses to sign onto Representative Casar’s letter for an arms embargo against Israel. I asked for a meeting with him on the 25th day of my hunger strike/fast and was told he was unavailable to meet with me. Since it’s clear Rep. Huffman doesn’t care about Palestinians or his constituent’s lives and he seems to be indifferent to our collective suffering, I’m ending my hunger strike/fast for Gaza with my dear friends and colleagues at the press conference at a press conference today and saving my energy to sue these criminals.
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