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
josh gottheimer
Progressives Warn Democrats: Vote for Iran War Powers Resolution or Face Primary Challenge
"Today every House member will go on record and answer: Do they truly oppose endless wars and stand for the Constitution, or were those just empty campaign slogans?" said one group.
Mar 05, 2026
As the US House prepared to vote Thursday on a war powers resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's assault on Iran and Democratic leaders whip votes in support of the measure, progressive organizers ramped up pressure on lawmakers to side with the vast majority of the party's voters and support the resolution—or face consequences in upcoming elections.
Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, told Axios Wednesday after Senate Republicans—and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania—voted down a companion resolution, that "any Democrat that votes against war powers is supporting Trump's war on Iran and deserves to be primaried because all voters across the political spectrum are wholeheartedly against it."
A poll released by Reuters/Ipsos this week found that just 25% of voters support Trump's decision to join Israel in launching airstrikes across Iran, which have so far killed more than 1,000 Iranian civilians. At least six US service members have also died or been killed since the unprovoked assault began over the weekend.
Only 7% of Democratic voters support "Operation Epic Fury," as the administration is calling the attacks, while 74% oppose it. A small majority of Republicans, 55%, said they approved of the White House's war on Iran, which the administration has justified with conflicting reasons—none of them convincing experts who say the attacks are a clear violation of international law.
After warning that "the American people will remember who voted to keep our service members in danger by supporting this dangerous, unnecessary, unpopular war" following the Senate vote on Wednesday, the advocacy group Demand Progress urged Americans to call their representatives in Congress and demand they support the war powers resolution introduced in the House by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
The measure is expected to fail due to the GOP majority; Republicans hold 218 seats in the House while Democrats control 214; Massie and one other Republican, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), have indicated support.
Groups are "organizing calls into their districts to make sure that every Democrat votes for" the bipartisan resolution, one House progressive told the outlet.
Organizers are directing particular ire at House Democrats who have a history of staunchly backing Israel and have unveiled a resolution that would allow Trump to continue striking Iran for 30 days.
That resolution was introduced by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) and would authorize the attacks for roughly the same length of time the president has said he believes they'll last, although Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could take twice as long and that, ultimately, there would be no timeline placed on the war.
Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, told The Intercept Wednesday that for "any representative that is actually against the war," the resolution introduced by Khanna and Massie is "the vehicle they should be voting for now, and not attempting to give Trump a blank check for 30 days."
“We have already seen in the past four days the death and destruction and escalation with this war. I can’t even imagine what things look like in 30 days," said Kharrazian.
Golden is not seeking reelection this year; the other five co-sponsors of the alternative war powers resolution are up for reelection and facing primaries in the coming months.
Axios asked other lawmakers including Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) how they plan to vote on Khanna and Massie's resolution, but did not receive clear answers, with Suozzi saying only that he was "going to do the right thing."
Moskowitz told The Hill that he has "decided" how he'll vote but is "not ready to say what my vote is."
Oliver Larkin, a democratic socialist running against Moskowitz in the primary, seized on the congressman's comment.
Britt Jacovich, a spokesperson for the grassroots advocacy group MoveOn, told Axios that the organization's members "have no plans to throw their support behind members of Congress who refused to do their job and stop Trump from expanding his war. All options are on the table to make sure that our members' voices are heard loud and clear."
MoveOn also said Wednesday that any lawmaker who supports a $50 billion supplemental funding package "should expect to hear from our members."
"MoveOn members consider a vote for the supplemental a vote in favor of Donald Trump's war," said the group.
In a private Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), made an "emphatic" case for Khanna and Massie's resolution, and House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) has been leading efforts to whip votes.
One anonymous progressive House Democrat told Axios that a vote against the resolution would be "politically perilous" for any Democrat.
Advocacy groups are "already preparing" to organize primary challenges against Democrats who break ranks or vote to allow Trump to attack Iran for a 30-day window, said the lawmaker.
"If the filing deadline has passed, they'll do it in '28," they told Axios. "It's basically inviting a primary challenge."
Paco Fabian, a spokesperson for Our Revolution, told Axios that "when elected officials... fail to stand with working people demanding peace and accountability, they risk losing the trust of the voters who put them in office."
"And when that trust is broken," he said, "voters often begin looking for leaders who will fight for them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Competing Dem War Powers Resolution Would Give Trump a Monthlong Free Pass in Iran
"The American people are firmly against this war and will see straight through this ruse," said one campaigner.
Mar 03, 2026
As the House of Representatives faces mounting pressure to pass Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's war powers resolution to end the US-Israeli assault on Iran, six right-wing Democrats on Tuesday introduced a competing bill that would give President Donald Trump a green light to keep waging war in the Middle East for the next month.
Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have been pushing for their H.Con.Res.38 since shortly before Trump bombed Iranian nuclear facilities last June. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Saturday attack has ramped up demands for Congress to pass that resolution, along with S.J.Res.59, introduced last year by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
Those resolutions, expected to receive votes this week, were already facing uphill battles in both Republican-controlled chambers, and all-but-certain vetoes if they ever made it to Trump, whose administration claims "Operation Epic Fury" is about preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, while critics around the world accuse him and Netanyahu of engaging in an illegal regime change war.
At least six US service members and hundreds of Iranians are now dead. Despite the rising death toll, the Democrats behind the new proposal—Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)—made clear that they oppose a swift end to the conflict.
"There is a concern that the Khanna-Massie war powers resolution currently requires the immediate withdrawal of US forces, even while Iran is actively targeting American troops, assets, embassies, and our allies across the region," they said in a statement. "It is vital that we allow for a safe transition, that protects our service members, embassies, and allies, not a potentially precarious withdrawal."
While proposing a 30-day window for ending the conflict—absent an authorization for the use of military force or a formal declaration of war from Congress—the six Democrats also said that "an open-ended commitment by the administration and the recent implication from the secretary of defense that ground troops may be engaged are both unacceptable."
Politico called the new measure "a sign of how some Democrats are struggling to reconcile their opposition to the Trump administration's military action with a desire to appear hawkish on national security—even in a largely symbolic capacity."
The outlet also noted that when asked about the latest proposal during a Tuesday news conference, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said that "our focus is on the resolution that will be on the floor this week."
"We'll continue to make the strongest possible case," Jeffries added. "There is going to be very strong Democratic support for the war powers resolution across the ideological spectrum."
Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser at the grassroots group Demand Progress, was far more critical, declaring that "of course Democrats who raced to applaud Trump's illegal war in Iran, and in one case was pardoned by him, would draft a pro-war war powers resolution meant to sabotage the real war powers resolution receiving a vote this week."
"This Trojan horse resolution attempts to give Trump a free pass to continue waging an unauthorized war in Iran for a whole month—exactly the amount of time that Trump has said he expects the war to last," he warned. "The American people are firmly against this war and will see straight through this ruse."
"Representatives need to ignore this bad-faith distraction," Kharrazian argued, "and vote for the bipartisan Khanna-Massie resolution that will actually stop this illegal war and bring our troops home."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hakeem Jeffries Pilloried for Putting Pro-Industry Democrats on AI Policy Task Force, Despite Voter Distrust of Big Tech
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said one anti-monopoly expert.
Dec 10, 2025
At a time when the American public, and especially Democratic voters, express overwhelming distrust of artificial intelligence and Big Tech, the top House Democrat is being accused of failing to meet the moment.
On Tuesday, in preparation for an executive order to be signed this week by President Donald Trump, which would seek to block states from implementing new AI regulations, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) unveiled his own effort to cozy up to the industry, whose major players have set aside more than $200 million to push out anti-AI politicians during the 2026 midterms, according to the New York Times.
Jeffries announced the creation of a “House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy,” which will “develop policy expertise in partnership with the innovation community, relevant stakeholders, and committees of jurisdiction.”
What immediately caught the eye of critics was the list of fellow Democrats Jeffries picked to serve on the commission. It will be co-chaired by Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Valerie Foushee (NC), with Reps. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) and Frank Pallone (NJ) serving as ex officio co-chairs.
As Sludge reported Tuesday: "The panel’s leaders rank among the House Democrats with the deepest ties to Big Tech and AI, from holding millions of dollars in tech stock to the contributions they’ve raised for their campaigns and the Republican-backed deregulation bills they've signed onto."
In July, Gottheimer introduced a bill along with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) "that would require financial regulators to create 'AI Innovation Labs' where firms could experiment with AI-driven financial products under looser regulations and without the normal threats of enforcement actions."
Gottheimer is also a major stakeholder in Microsoft, which has invested tens of millions of dollars into AI and nearly $7.5 million on lobbying in 2025 so far. Beyond the almost $100,000 in contributions Gottheimer has received from Microsoft, he is also a former executive who received anywhere from $1 million to $5 million last year from his stock holdings in the company, according to financial disclosure forms. He also frequently trades in other AI power players like Amazon, Meta, and Dell.
Lofgren, meanwhile, has accepted more money from the Internet industry over the course of her career than all but one other current House Democrat—including $265,000 from Google, $115,000 from Apple, and $110,000 from Meta, according to data from OpenSecrets.
In September 2024, Lofgren co-sponsored a bill introduced by Rep. Jay Abernolte (R-Calif.) which "would create a federal 'center for AI advancement and reliability' that it would instruct to work closely with private companies and other stakeholders on developing 'voluntary best practices and technical standards for evaluating the reliability, robustness, resilience, security, and safety of artificial intelligence systems.'"
Foushee, a member of the corporate-backed New Democrat Coalition, rode to Congress in 2022 with more than $1 million from the Protect Our Future political action committee, which was backed by former FTX CEO and convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.
In response to Trump's industry-friendly "AI Action Plan" in July, Foushee and the New Democrats unveiled their own "Innovation Agenda," which called for federal tax credits to companies that "reskill" workers and perform private research and development as well as federal investments in apprenticeships and "labor market data modernization."
Jeffries has neglected to take a position on Trump's proposal to preempt state regulations. Last Monday, he told reporters, "That conversation hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet."
In his statement announcing the Democratic commission on Tuesday, Jeffries said, "It is important that American companies continue to thrive" in the arena of AI, while "at the same time, Congress must consider what policies are needed to prevent bad actors from exploiting this transformative technology and inflicting harm upon the American people." However, he did not specifically mention Trump's pending block on state regulations.
A poll released Friday by the progressive group Demand Progress showed that Americans across the political spectrum are unsettled by AI's influence in Washington: 68% of respondents overall said they were more worried that "the US government will not regulate artificial intelligence enough," as opposed to just 21% who feared too much regulation. While Democrats and independents were somewhat more concerned about underregulation at 71%, Republicans largely shared those fears, with 62% saying they feared the government would not regulate AI enough.
The consensus was even stronger regarding Big Tech's power over AI policy, with 78% of respondents overall saying it had too much influence. This included 81% of Democrats and independents and 74% of Republicans.
With this in mind, many critics were puzzled by Jeffries' decision to stack his AI commission with some of the industry's top allies.
As Aaron Regunberg wrote in the New Republic last month, harnessing anger against the rapid, largely unregulated expansion of expensive, energy-sucking AI data centers was an essential part of Democrats' victories across the board in November's off-year elections:
In New Jersey, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s closing argument was a pledge to freeze electricity rates, which have soared because of data-center demand.
In Virginia, Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger won after pledging to make data centers “pay their own way,” and many Democrats went even further.
At least one candidate, John McAuliff, flipped a seat in the House of Delegates by focusing almost entirely on tying his Republican opponent to the “unchecked growth” of data centers, with an ad that asked, “Do you want more of these in your backyard?”
And in Georgia, Democrats won their first nonfederal statewide races in decades, earning 60% of the vote against two Republican members of the Public Service Commission by criticizing Big Tech “sweetheart deals” and campaigning for policies “to ensure that the communities that they’re extracting from” don’t end up with their “water supplies … tapped out or their energy … maxed out.”
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly expert.
Matt Duss, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), added: "Anticorruption is one of the strongest arguments with the broadest appeal in American politics right now, but the Democratic leadership simply refuses to stop tanking it."
Author Zachary D. Carter said: "I have never seen a gulf this wide between Democratic leadership and the party writ large. The top is corrupt, the base is raging against corruption."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular