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
just foreign policy
A Reminder Amid Group Chat Outrage: US Strikes on Yemen Are Unconstitutional
"President Trump has not only launched us into a new military escapade in the Middle East, he's done so in breach of our Constitution," said one advocate.
Mar 27, 2025
The leaked messages among top Trump administration officials about U.S. strikes in Yemen earlier this month, which were held via a private sector messaging app in breach of national security protocol and inadvertently included a journalist, sparked considerable discussion among political commentators and social media users—but as the initial shock regarding the Signal conversation faded, advocates and policy experts said lawmakers' attention should turn to the illegality of the attacks on Yemen.
The advocacy groups Just Foreign Policy, DAWN, and Action Corps released a joint statement Thursday calling on Congress to take action to stop U.S. military action in Yemen by upholding "its sole authority to declare war under Article I of the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR)."
The chat messages sent between officials including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz stunned the public and Washington insiders this week because they had accidentally also been sent to Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, but the three groups pointed out that they also included an admission from Vance that the strikes were not defensive—contrary to claims by President Donald Trump:
I think we are making a mistake… 3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message…
Vance's comments bolster the three groups' position that "the strikes also violate Chapters I and VII of the United Nations Charter, which prohibit states from launching a war unless in self-defense or authorized by the U.N. Security Council."
Even before the chats were leaked, said the groups, it was clear that Trump had not sought congressional authorization for military strikes in Yemen, which have killed at least 53 people since the U.S. launched attacks on March 15.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was introduced after former President Richard Nixon's secretive bombings of Cambodia, requires congressional authorization for "the introduction of the United States armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," while Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war.
"Congress should demand an end to this reckless, unauthorized war that will both harm U.S. interests and continue to terrorize the Yemeni people who have already suffered years of U.S.-backed violence."
"President Trump has not only launched us into a new military escapade in the Middle East, he's done so in breach of our Constitution," said Isaac Evans-Frantz, director of Action Corps. "Congress should demand an end to this reckless, unauthorized war that will both harm U.S. interests and continue to terrorize the Yemeni people who have already suffered years of U.S.-backed violence."
The groups' comments echoed those of Michigan State University professor and Quincy Institute fellow Shireen Al-Adeimi, who is Yemeni-American.
"With all the noise about the Signal leak, is anyone in Congress or the media concerned that actually bombing Yemeni people and Yemen's infrastructure is unconstitutional?" she asked on Tuesday. "Anyone?"
The Trump administration claimed that the strikes in Yemen were made because the Houthis' blockade on Israeli ships—established in retaliation for Israel's breaking of a cease-fire in Gaza—was an attack on U.S. economic interests and economic security, but the three groups noted that "there is no evidence that Houthi forces attacked any U.S. ships or personnel from the beginning of the Gaza cease-fire in January 2025 through March 15."
The Houthis struck cargo ships they deemed to be tied to Israel starting in November 2023, in response to Israel's relentless assault on Gaza. They stopped the attacks for the duration of the cease-fire, which lasted nearly two months starting in mid-January.
"The cessation of Houthi attacks during the short-lived Gaza truce underscores their primary focus to defend Palestinians from genocide—a reality obscured by Trump's rhetoric to justify unauthorized military action and deepen U.S. aggression in a widening conflict," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN. "The best way to protect global maritime navigation through the Red Sea is to ensure the Israeli government ends its genocidal violence in Gaza."
Along with Vance's apparent admission that the strikes were not in self-defense, the Signal discussion included what observers called a "confession" to alleged war crimes by Waltz, who said the residential building of the girlfriend of a Houthi leader had "collapsed" after a U.S. strike. As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Waltz and Vance celebrated the strike.
Etan Mabourakh, a fellow at Action Corps, called on Congress to introduce a Yemen War Powers Resolution. The House and Senate both passed such a resolution in 2019 to bar the U.S. from participating in the Saudi war in Yemen.
"Congress should take the necessary step to stop these illegal, ineffective, and unauthorized airstrikes in Yemen," said Mabourakh. "Rather than debating the Trump administration's violation of security protocols in their Signal chats, they should do their job and challenge another unlawful new war in the region that is making everyone less safe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Oval Office Meltdown, Trump Cuts Off All US Military Aid to Ukraine
"Let's be clear—this is not about bringing peace," argued Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Donald Trump is siding with Russia, Putin, and dictators across the world over our allies and the defense of democracy."
Mar 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump late Monday ordered a suspension of all American military assistance to Ukraine after his conduct in a televised meeting with the war-torn country's president in the Oval Office last week sparked international dismay and outrage.
Trump's decision reportedly impacts over $1 billion worth of weaponry and ammunition that was set to be delivered to Ukraine, which has been under attack by invading Russian forces since February 2022. The U.S. has provided more than $65 billion in military aid to Ukraine during the full-scale Russian assault, according to State Department figures.
The Associated Press noted Monday that the U.S. president's move "comes some five years after Trump held up congressionally authorized assistance to Ukraine as he sought to pressure [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy to launch an investigation into Joe Biden, then a Democratic presidential candidate."
"The moment led to Trump's first impeachment," the news outlet observed.
Democratic members of Congress argued that Trump's aid cutoff amounts to another instance of the U.S. president unlawfully withholding spending approved by lawmakers—and rejected the White House's claim that the move was motivated by a genuine desire for peace.
"Let's be clear—this is not about bringing peace," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who faced backlash in late 2022 over her handling of a Congressional Progressive Caucus letter urging the Biden administration to "seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement."
"Donald Trump is siding with Russia, Putin, and dictators across the world over our allies and the defense of democracy," Jayapal said Monday. "This is a shameful day in American history."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that "if President Trump was truly concerned with securing a just and sustainable peace deal for Ukraine, he wouldn't have conceded every piece of leverage the United States, our allies, and Ukraine held before even beginning negotiations."
"He wouldn't be siding with an authoritarian responsible for war crimes," Meeks continued. "And he certainly wouldn't be forcing Ukraine into surrender, while claiming it's a deal. Instead, he would have continued U.S. support for Ukraine to put it in the best possible position to secure a peace deal for Russia's illegal and unjustified war against it."
"Ukraine is left with impossible choices: fight a losing war without U.S. support, or submit to economic vassalage under the very powers that prolonged its suffering."
Trump's decision to suspend U.S. aid to Ukraine, which the Kremlin welcomed, came after Zelenskyy said in the wake of the Oval Office meeting that "an agreement to end the war is still very, very far away."
"The peace that we foresee in the future must be just, honest, and most importantly, sustainable," added Zelenskyy, who has demanded security guarantees from the West as part of any diplomatic resolution with Russia.
Trump, who is pushing for U.S. control of Ukraine's mineral wealth, responded furiously to Zelenskyy's comment, calling it "the worst statement that could have been made."
Trump's Oval Office blow-up and subsequent aid suspension led some to lament missed opportunities for diplomacy under U.S. President Joe Biden.
"It would have been better for Ukraine—and the world—if Biden had pursued diplomacy much earlier," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "But the Blob and the Democratic centrists shut down even any whisper of diplomacy."
Aída Chávez, communications director and policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy, argued in a recent column for The Intercept that "Trump's demand for 'payback' from Ukraine—treating the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II as if it's some unappreciated favor—presents U.S. foreign policy in its most naked form."
"As a result of the West's refusal to seriously consider diplomacy," Chávez added, "Ukraine is left with impossible choices: fight a losing war without U.S. support, or submit to economic vassalage under the very powers that prolonged its suffering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Growing Anger, Sanders Stands Firmly Against Gaza Cease-Fire
The Vermont senator instead called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, an end to "indiscriminate bombing," and a humanitarian pause.
Nov 17, 2023
Facing
backlash from former staffers and other progressives, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday declined once again to join the growing number of congressional lawmakers demanding an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, saying in a statement that he is "not quite sure how you negotiate a cease-fire with a terrorist organization that is dedicated to perpetual war."
Sanders (I-Vt.) was referencing a Hamas spokesman's recent remark to The New York Times that he hopes "the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders"—an indication, according to the Vermont senator, that Hamas "wants perpetual warfare and the destruction of Israel."
Sanders supported a cease-fire during Israel's deadly assault on Gaza in 2021, when he delivered a floor speech decrying the "terrible loss of life" in the enclave and demanding an immediate end to the bloodshed.
But an unnamed former adviser to the senator told The Washington Post that he believes the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel forever changed Sanders' view on the possibility of a sustained cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
Instead of a negotiated cease-fire, Sanders has called for an end to Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" and a "significant pause" to allow desperately needed humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, as well as a guarantee that displaced Gazans are able to return to their homes—many of which have been significantly damaged or destroyed by Israeli airstrikes.
In his statement Thursday, the senator also called on lawmakers to "attach conditions to any supplemental spending bill for Israel that comes before Congress," something the Biden administration has opposed.
"If we are going to have a chance at saving innocent lives, Congress must take action, the Biden administration must take action, the world must take action," said Sanders. "We must find a way to break this cycle of violence."
"Nobody thinks that a single resolution would solve the entire crisis. It's an organizing tool that has mobilized countless thousands of people. Curious what organizing tool Bernie's office would prefer?"
The senator's statement came as congressional calls for a cease-fire continued to grow amid survey data and mass protests showing overwhelming support from the U.S. public.
On Thursday, Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) became the first Jewish member of Congress to endorse a cease-fire, writing in the VTDigger that "it will be the first step in the difficult and critical work needed ahead—building Israel's post-war government, determining who will govern the Gaza Strip, and negotiating long-term peace and security for both Palestinians and Israelis."
According to a tally by The Intercept's Prem Thakker, 33 members of Congress—including just one senator, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—have expressed support for a cease-fire, which is also backed by the head of the United Nations, Amnesty International, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, and many others worldwide.
A number of House Democrats have signed onto a cease-fire resolution introduced last month by Sanders allies in the House, including Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
But Sanders argued Thursday that "non-binding resolutions that Congress won't pass" aren't the solution to the current conflict, an apparent reference to the House cease-fire measure.
Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, wrote in response that "nobody thinks that a single resolution would solve the entire crisis."
"It's an organizing tool that has mobilized countless thousands of people," he wrote. "Curious what organizing tool Bernie's office would prefer?"
Sperling added that "there are many flaws with his argument for why you cannot achieve a ceasefire with Hamas."
"But perhaps most troublingly," he wrote, "Sen. Sanders appears to be endorsing the Netanyahu regime change goal of removing Hamas from Gaza, meaning Bernie actually wants war to resume after any pauses."
The senator released his latest statement on Gaza days after more than 300 people who served as Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 2016 and 2020 signed an open letter urging him to introduce a companion to the House cease-fire resolution in the Senate, echoing a call recently issued by hundreds of former Sanders campaign staffers.
"We ask you to stand again for the principles that drew millions in our districts to your campaigns—opposition to endless wars and horrific violence, and zealous struggle for peace and justice," the former delegates wrote. "As in 2016 and 2020, you are not alone: from coast to coast, we have your back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular