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
mike johnson
'They Were Afraid It Would Pass': House GOP Cancels Iran War Powers Vote for Second Straight Day
"The GOP doesn't care about your skyrocketing costs for gas, groceries, and everything else. They only care about appeasing Trump," said the House minority whip.
May 21, 2026
After four US Senate Republicans on Tuesday helped Democrats advance a war powers resolution intended to halt President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, GOP leadership in the House of Representatives canceled a similar vote on Wednesday, and again on Thursday.
Progressive and Democratic Party leaders in the House were quick to call out Republican leadership, including Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), who Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said "has cemented his legacy as the speaker who handed the most corrupt president ever complete control over the House."
"Republicans can run from Trump's disastrous war, but they can't hide. Thousands are dead, and gas and grocery prices are up, and progressives will not stop demanding votes... until the war is actually ended," Casar pledged, as Americans prepared to spend an estimated extra $3.5 billion on gasoline over the holiday weekend.
CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly said on social media: "Republicans just called off the vote on a war powers resolution because they were afraid it would pass and Trump's war of choice in Iran would be ended. This is absolutely ridiculous, and a failure of leadership from the Republican Party."
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) also accused Republicans of refusing to hold a vote "because they knew it would pass," adding: "The GOP doesn't care about your skyrocketing costs for gas, groceries, and everything else. They only care about appeasing Trump."
Absences were the apparent issue for the House GOP on Thursday. Eight Republicans were not there for votes, according to C-SPAN Capitol Hill producer Craig Caplan, and retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who joined with nearly all Republicans to block a resolution last week, had made clear that he intended to support the measure this week.
Cheered on by colleagues, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) took to the House floor to demand answers about the schedule: "Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can't afford their groceries. Is that why you're pulling it? You guys don't have the guts or the balls to vote on this."
Republican Congressmen Tom Barrett (Mich.), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.) had broken ranks and joined Democrats for last week's vote. While Massie was absent on Thursday after a stinging primary loss earlier this week, "some Republicans believed Fitzpatrick and Barrett would vote for the resolution again Thursday before they pulled it," Politico reported.
Fitzpatrick confirmed that, telling Punchbowl News' Briana Reilly: "They're claiming they have two more days to bring it. I was prepared to vote for it."
After the cancellation, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said that "as tonight shows, the deck is stacked against pro-peace Americans: Even when a majority of Americans oppose a war, and a majority of Congress opposes a war, congressional leaders find ways to cancel a vote so that the war can continue!"
"This cowardice makes a mockery of the democratic process—but it will not silence Americans who are in the right that oppose this catastrophic, illegal war," NIAC added. "We will keep up the momentum until we bring this disastrous and backfiring war to a close."
Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, suggested Thursday that "the best thing" for Trump and the GOP would be to lose a war powers vote, because then the president "would have cover to make a deal with Iran and let gas prices come down."
The cancellation of the war powers vote was part of what Politico's Meredith Lee Hill called "a BIG mess" in the chamber "as lawmakers want to leave for Memorial Day recess," given that "reconciliation 2.0 is already iced," and a "GOP-led bill to create a women's museum is set to fail amid a GOP revolt." That vote was held, and failed as expected.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Uses Correspondents' Dinner Shooting to Justify Expanding Spying Powers as Deadline Nears
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is set to expire Thursday, and the president is claiming Saturday's shooting proved "the safety of our nation" depends on the program.
Apr 27, 2026
An exchange of gunfire between an armed suspect and law enforcement outside the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday came days ahead of a deadline for extending far-reaching government surveillance powers, and President Donald Trump wasted no time in claiming that the attempted attack on the event proved that the FBI must be permitted to spy on Americans without obtaining warrants.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Trump repeated his previous remarks that he is "willing to give up [his] security" in favor of extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire on Thursday—and suggested other Americans should do the same for "the safety of our nation."
Section 702 allows US intelligence agencies to surveil the electronic communications of foreign nationals overseas without a warrant. Since some of the nearly 350,000 foreign nationals whose communications have been collected under the law are in touch with Americans, Section 702 allows for the collection of emails, text messages, and phone calls of US citizens.
Fox anchor Jacqui Heinrich emphasized that "we don't know right now" whether the suspect in Saturday's shooting, Cole Tomas Allen, "was radicalized" by a foreign individual or group, but asked whether the attack drove home "the importance of having these tools to protect our country from these kinds of threats."
The president responded by complaining that former FBI Director James Comey used FISA to obtain warrants to surveil a former Trump aide as part of the agency's investigation into the 2016 Trump presidential campaign's communications with Russia, before saying FISA has been used in the US-Israeli war on Iran and in the US military's invasion of Venezuela earlier this year.
"It's really needed for national security," said Trump. "Iran is decimated, and we got a lot of information by using FISA... I'm willing to give up my security for the military because ultimately that's to me the highest cause is, you know, the safety of our nation."
Pres. Trump, under prodding from Fox News, exploits White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting to push for Congress to approve FISA domestic spying program: "It's really needed for national security…"
He reiterates that he's willing to give up his liberties for safety. pic.twitter.com/tmcepp0Wgn
— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) April 26, 2026
Jordan Liz, an associate professor of philosophy at San José State University, wrote last week in a column at Common Dreams that while Trump, Republican lawmakers, and US intelligence agencies "make sweeping claims about the terror attacks that Section 702 has prevented, there is little publicly available evidence to support this."
"According to the Cato Institute, there is only one well-documented, independently corroborated case of Section 702 preventing a terrorist attack on American soil: the 2009 New York subway bombing plot," wrote Liz. "In that case, Section 702 was used by the [National Security Agency] to track an exchange between an al-Qaeda courier and Najibullah Zazi, who was living in the US. The NSA passed this information to the FBI, which identified Zazi and disrupted the attack before it took place. Importantly, however, the NSA allegedly received the courier’s foreign email address from the government’s British intelligence partners. At best then, this success was a byproduct of productive intelligence sharing between allies. Rather than proving the necessity of Section 702, this incident underscores how Trump’s inane attacks against key US allies undermine our national security."
The suspect in Saturday's shooting is believed to have acted alone, and no evidence has been released that he was in communication with any foreign entities. A document he wrote alluded to his Christian beliefs and to reports of the administration's abuse of immigrants in detention centers, its boat-bombing operations in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, and the bombing of an elementary school in Iran.
The president has been pushing in recent weeks for an extension of Section 702. The program was last reauthorized in 2024, and earlier this month two efforts to extend the program—one for 18 months and the other for five years—failed, with opponents objecting to a lack of privacy reforms and to a loophole allowing data brokers to sell private information about Americans to government agencies that have not obtained judicial approval to seize the data.
After those proposals failed, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) last week unveiled a new bill to extend Section 702 for three years and require the FBI to submit monthly reports on its reviews of Americans' private data to an oversight official, as well as imposing penalties for abuse—provisions that were dismissed by privacy advocates.
The House Rules Committee was set to convene on Monday, a step toward advancing the new bill toward a vote in the House, and according to NPR, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) circulated a memo late last week urging his colleagues to reject the Republicans' latest proposal.
The bill, he wrote, "continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans' data... FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans' communications without any review from a judge."
Four Democrats in the House—Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Tom Suozzi (D-NJ), Marie Gluesencamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Jared Golden (D-Maine)—broke with the party and joined the GOP earlier this month in supporting a procedural vote to advance the reauthorization of Section 702, and privacy advocates are ramping up pressure on them to oppose the latest proposal for an extension.
"It all comes down to those four and where they are going to land,” Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, told The Intercept Monday, “and if they are going to continue to try to hand Trump and [White House homeland security adviser] Stephen Miller warrantless surveillance authorities without any sort of checks or reforms that make sure they’re not violating civil liberties.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Key Democrats Under Pressure to Reject House GOP's New 3-Year FISA Extension
"Donald Trump and Stephen Miller want unfettered surveillance powers without any chance to enact protections, and Democrats must not give it to them," one campaigner warned.
Apr 23, 2026
A week after four Democrats helped Republicans pass a short-term extension of a controversial spying power with a dead-of-night vote in the US House of Representatives, Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday released a bill that would renew the authority for three years—double the amount of time the Louisiana Republican and President Donald Trump were previously pushing.
As that bill text circulated, Demand Progress—one of the scores of civil society groups calling for privacy reforms to be included in any renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—took aim at those Democrats: Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Tom Suozzi (NY).
"Just like last time, Speaker Johnson's latest proposal lacks any meaningful privacy reforms, but this time, they're trying to renew FISA for three more years—twice as long as the Trump administration asked for," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado in a statement.
"Donald Trump and Stephen Miller want unfettered surveillance powers without any chance to enact protections, and Democrats must not give it to them," Hammado argued, referring to Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser.
"We need Reps. Gottheimer, Suozzi, Golden, and Gluesenkamp Perez to stand with the rest of Democrats and hold Donald Trump accountable," the campaigner emphasized. "A vote in support of this FISA bill, especially procedural votes to advance it, is both a vote to allow Donald Trump to continue invasive, warrantless surveillance of private American citizens, and to sabotage even the chance of protecting privacy."
FISA's Section 702 allows the US government to surveil electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, without a warrant. However, it's been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alone—which has fueled calls for reforms, including closing the data broker loophole that agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
"Speaker Johnson wants to pretend this bill is reform, but it's the same type of empty-calorie proposal that failed last week," warned Jake Laperruque, deputy director of Center for Democracy and Technology's Security and Surveillance Project. "There is nothing in this bill that would have prevented the abuses of FISA 702 we've already seen—snooping on lawmakers, protesters, and campaign donors—and there is nothing that would stop even worse abuses in the future."
"Members of Congress have a clear choice: They can support this proposal and give the FBI and other intelligence agencies a three-year blank check, or they can stand strong and demand real reforms to protect the American people," he said.
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program, similarly stressed how the latest bill is "almost identical to the one that failed last week," explaining on social media that "the main 'reform' in Johnson's first proposal was a provision that merely restated existing law, under which the government may not 'target' Americans under Section 702 but may do so with a warrant or FISA Title I order."
"That provision was titled 'warrant requirement,' even though it imposed no new warrant requirement whatsoever. And it had zero relevance to the issue at the heart of the debate over Section 702, namely, backdoor searches," she noted. "Backdoor searches are not considered to be 'targeting' Americans for surveillance. Rather, they are searches of collected communications of foreign targets outside the United States for Americans' communications that were 'incidentally' swept in."
"Astonishingly, Johnson has chosen to feature this same do-nothing provision in his new proposal. This time, the drafters have dropped any pretense of creating new law and titled the provision 'Fourth Amendment Requirement for Targeting United States Persons,'" Goitein continued. "This is not a reform bill, and it's not a compromise. It's a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it's NOT a straight reauthorization."
According to her: "House members didn't fall for it last week, and they shouldn't fall for it now. Speaker Johnson must allow the House to vote on the reforms that members and the American people are demanding, including a warrant requirement to access Americans' communications."
The GOP narrowly has the numbers to pass legislation with a party-line vote in the House, but some of the chamber's Republicans have joined in the calls for privacy reforms. Libertarian leaders, including Justin Amash, a former Republican congressman from Michigan, have forcefully spoken out against Johnson's efforts.
"House Republicans are spitting on the Constitution and spitting in all our faces," Amash said of the bill unveiled Thursday.
Calling out the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and vast US Intelligence Community, Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the libertarian Cato Institute, declared that "this is an HPSCI, SSCI, IC Trojan horse bill masquerading as something Fourth Amendment-compliant."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) "is threatening to take over negotiations if the House GOP can’t resolve differences quickly," according to Politico. In the upper chamber, Republicans need at least some Democratic support to pass a reauthorization bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular