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
peace action
Coalition Demands Schumer, Jeffries Step Down Over Failure to Fight 'War-Crazed' Trump
"Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Mar 11, 2026
A coalition of peace groups on Wednesday launched a new national campaign calling for the top Democrats in Congress—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—to resign from their leadership roles, citing their failure to sufficiently fight back "against a war-crazed Trump administration."
The coalition, which includes Peace Action and RootsAction, launched a petition declaring that it is "time for congressional Democrats to replace Schumer and Jeffries with leaders who are willing and able to challenge the runaway militarism that has dragged our country into launching yet another insanely destructive war," this time against Iran.
"Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have not acted to prevent war on Venezuela or the current war on Iran," the petition reads. "They worked to delay a vote on Iran until after the war had started, while failing to clearly oppose it before or after the launch of the war. Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Kevin Martin, president of Peace Action—the largest grassroots peace network in the US—said in a statement that he doubts "at this point whether many people look to Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries for ‘leadership’ in Congress, but we would settle for them getting with the program and representing their base, and the majority of Americans, who want them to stand strongly against Trump’s illegal wars and domestic terror campaigns against the American people."
"They need to speak out loudly and clearly, and get their caucuses in line, to oppose the upcoming $50 billion or more for Trump’s illegal war of aggression on Iran, and to cut off US weapons to Israel," said Martin. "Failing to do so will only increase calls for them to step down or be replaced by colleagues who understand where the American people are on these and other critical issues."
Since the start of the illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran, Schumer and Jeffries have focused largely on procedural objections to the war, the Trump administration's incompetence, and the president's failure to clearly articulate his objectives, rather than explicitly opposing the military onslaught.
In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Jeffries declined to say whether he would oppose the Trump administration's expected push for $50 billion in new funding for the unauthorized war on Iran.
"We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it," Jeffries said, chiding the administration for failing to "make its case as to the rationale or justification for this war of choice in the Middle East."
Sarah Lazare and Adam Johnson wrote for The Nation last week that "it’s not enough to check the box, to do the bare minimum, to reinforce every argument for war only to balk at the process and ask whether there’s a 'plan' for after the myriad war crimes have already been committed."
"The only way to read this half-hearted response from the Democratic Party leadership," they argued, "is de facto support."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Attack Iran? No! We Must Stop This Illegal Act by Trump
It’s getting late, but it’s not yet too late. No war on Iran!
Feb 19, 2026
President Donald Trump seems to think he is King of the World, not just the United States. Even as he convenes his “Board of Peace” (though calling it the “Board of Imperial Conquest” would be more apt) it looks like the US will soon illegally attack Iran, again, as it did last June. Congress needs to do its job representing the will of the American people, get a spine, step up to its Constitutional duty over matters of war and peace, and stop him.
The US has attacked seven countries (eight if one includes the US of A, and most people in Minneapolis and many other cities surely think so) since Trump’s recrudescence. Ongoing talks with Iran do not appear to be promising, with unrealistic US demands, especially zero nuclear energy enrichment by Tehran and the dismantling of its missile program, which would leave it vulnerable to further Israeli attacks. Trump’s "beautiful armada" including two aircraft carrier battle groups with supporting attack aircraft is the largest US military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
This massive (and expensive) deployment of forces is exactly what one does in planning for a large-scale military offensive against Iran, just as the region begins the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. This would go far beyond the more limited strikes that have taken place in the past, including last June’s attack that killed 1,000 people. “It harkens back to what I saw ahead of the 2003 Iraq war,” said retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. “You don’t assemble this kind of power to send a message. In my view, this is what you do when you’re preparing to use it. What I see on the diplomatic front is just to try to keep things rolling until it’s time to actually launch the military operation.”
Lest anyone forget, this crisis is all of Trump's making, as he abrogated the multilateral agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, negotiated under President Barack Obama, which effectively and verifiably capped Iran's nuclear program well short of the ability to build The Bomb.
Trump should not have the last word on whether to attack Iran again. Next week, the House of Representatives will hold a vote on H. Con. Res. 38, the Iran War Powers Resolution, according to the measure's co-sponsor US Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA). US Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY) is the other lead sponsor, and the only Republican on the resolution at present, but a vote could be close, if mostly partisan. Just a few Republican votes could make the difference.
There is no news on a Senate vote at this time, though there is a companion resolution, S. J. Res 104, introduced by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Should the House resolution pass, the Senate vote might ensue quickly, as time is of the essence.
In a recent Quinnipiac poll, 70% of American voters said they oppose military action against Iran. It is time for Congress to fulfill its Constitutional authority and vote to require authorization of any military action against Iran.
It is no surprise the majority of Americans oppose a war with Iran. Similarly, most Iranians oppose a military strike on their country. Now, it’s up to us to demand that Congress do its job and pull us back from the precipice of another disastrous war. Concerned individuals should call their US Representative via the Congressional switchboard at 202.224.3121, or 833-STOP-WAR
Also, on Monday at 2:30pm ET/11:30am PT, peace and constitution-loving people can join a virtual Action Hour on Zoom, where we'll mobilize together to demand Congress stop this unauthorized war before it starts.
The National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC) is organizing this event, co-sponsored by Peace Action & MPower Action, to equip you with immediate action you can take to urge lawmakers to oppose war and stand with the American and Iranian people. We will also be offering a brief "How to Advocate" 101 training to empower you to get face-to-face meetings with your lawmaker's office.
Click here to sign up and join us! us!
It’s getting late, but it’s not yet too late, to stop another illegal war of aggression.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Dragging World Toward a New Nuclear Arms Race
We only have one planet on which to live and time is of the essence.
Feb 03, 2026
Among the critical issues facing our country today, nuclear arms control is seldom top of mind for most people, understandably, given our myriad political, social and economic crises. Recent books and films such as Annie Jacobsen’s 2004 non-fiction tome Nuclear War: A Scenario and last fall’s A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, garnered needed attention for the still-existential threat of nuclear weapons, yet the problem remains mostly absent from our political discourse.
Part of the fault for that lies with President Donald Trump, who while constantly touting his ability to “make deals,” is missing in action on a simple agreement that would make the US and the world safer. New START, the arms control treaty negotiated by President Barack Obama and extended by President Joe Biden, will expire on February 5. However, Russia offered last September a one year, or longer, extension of the treaty’s key limits of 1550 deployed, strategic nuclear warheads and 700 launch systems each.
Trump simply needs to say “Da” (yes) to the Russian proposal, which would cost very little politically at this time. While both countries, along with the seven other nuclear weapons states, are in the midst of dangerous and exorbitant nuclear weapons “modernization” programs, neither are in a position to rapidly exceed the current New START limits, nor should they, for global security and financial reasons. While both countries tout their in-development bombs and missiles that could end most if not all life on Earth, at the cost of more life-affirming investments in human needs and protecting our planet, the reality is these systems, such as the new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), are boondoggles that mostly benefit the financial interests of the large weapons contractors rather than the Common Good.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further.
Then there is Trump’s fantasy of building a “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. Such a chimera is more properly seen as part of a potential offensive nuclear war fighting scheme rather than mere defense; that is if it works, which it is extremely unlikely to do. So it could be a lose-lose-lose scenario, whereby it spurs other countries to deploy more missiles and counter-measures to overcome such a missile “defense;” and it likely would not work to shoot down all incoming missiles (and would be useless against other forms of attack); and it could be used to argue arms control and disarmament treaties are unnecessary, because the shield will protect us, providing a dangerously false sense of security.
One does not need to engage in all the arguments against Golden Dome, or for investing in other, more economically productive pursuits, or think a nuclear weapons-free world is achievable any time soon, to agree that ditching the benefits of New START is a stunningly bad idea at this time.
The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have had a series of treaties limiting and reducing nuclear weapons since 1972. If New START limits go away, we will enter a very dangerous brave new world.
Trump’s famously insatiable ego could be slaked by not only agreeing to the Russian proposal, but by challenging Moscow to initiate new talks to go lower. At the end of the Obama Administration and in its aftermath, there were conflicting claims by the US and Russia on which side whiffed at a chance to go lower, to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads each. So Trump could propose something his nemesis Obama failed to do. Such an agreement might take a sustained period of negotiation, or Trump could do as President George H. W. Bush did in 1991 in announcing a unilateral nuclear weapons cut, which was coordinated with and matched by Russia, with mutually agreed verification procedures.
Trust between Moscow and Washington is low for various reasons, but neither country can afford, politically or economically, to engage in a futile, costly new arms race, and global public reprobation would be deservedly harsh for both countries. And it would further erode any credibility for the US to insist China engage in arms reduction talks regarding its arsenal, which is still much smaller than those of Russia and the US. Even at the height of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and United States competing for global dominance and engaging in deadly “proxy wars” and armed interventions around the globe, the two sides saw the wisdom of not blowing up the planet, and collaborated on a series of treaties that dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals, which made the world safer.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further. Upcoming international review conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) this spring and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) this fall, both at the United Nations in New York, will likely lay the blame for a renewed arms race at his feet.
It is not (yet) too late. A coalition of US peace and disarmament organizations is mobilizing public action to press Congress and the White House to accept the Kremlin’s offer, if not by Thursday’s deadline, then as soon as possible. For more information on how to raise your voice on this critical issue, concerned individuals can consult Peace Action’s FaceBook page.
Time is of the essence. We only have one planet.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Illegal, Immoral, Dangerous: No One Voted for Trump's Attack on Venezuela
So much for his being a peace president, or focusing on improving economic and social conditions for Americans.
Jan 03, 2026
The United States’ military special forces attack on Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, is illegal, immoral, dangerous, and must be condemned and repudiated by the American public, the international community, and the US Congress.
While no one should shed a tear for Maduro, who is credibly depicted as a corrupt, authoritarian leader, concern for the people of Venezuela, already suffering under terrible economic conditions, must be in the forefront, as the possibility of internal conflict is now increased. Bogus assertions that Venezuela stole US oil raise suspicions this is not about narcotics trafficking, but rather seizing resources such as oil and minerals. Moreover, other countries in the region are surely on high alert that they might be next in President Donald Trump’s crosshairs, and US forces deployed worldwide could be targeted for reprisals.
Trump just announced, ‘…we are going to run the country, until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’
No one voted for that, nor has Congress authorized it on behalf of the American people.
In less than a year in office, Trump has now attacked seven countries—Somalia, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela, along with alleged drug boats at sea—with at least 626 airstrikes, according to Military Times. So much for his being a peace president, or focusing on improving economic and social conditions for Americans.
Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives narrowly failed to pass War Powers Resolutions against US attacks on Venezuela, along almost entirely partisan lines, with Republicans refusing to vote against their president and in favor of their own authority over declaring war. Earlier, the Senate also narrowly failed to uphold its constitutional responsibilities, but US Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) stated a few days ago he would bring another War Powers Resolution up for a vote as soon as next week, and that should proceed without delay.
The United States’ history of lawless imperialism in the Western Hemisphere and beyond cannot be overstated or discounted, and international condemnation of this episode will presumably be strong and sustained. It is up to Congress and the American public to rein in a lawless executive branch intent on concocting distractions from the Epstein Files, the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, and the miserably failed policies of the Trump Administration. Emergency demonstrations against this illegal action will be held today in many US cities, and various actions to protest this attack and other ongoing US military adventurism will be ongoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Will Dem Leadership Follow the Base on Gaza or Get Left Behind?
By appearing to put the profits of arms manufacturers above the lives of Palestinian children, a refusal to condition offensive military aid could subject Israel hawks to primary challengers or result in lower turnout for incumbents in the general election.
Sep 07, 2025
Nearly two years in to the US-backed genocide in Gaza, there are clear signals that the Democratic Party’s base is moving far away from supporting the Israeli government and its war machine.
And while party leadership is beginning to show some hopeful signs that it might be starting to listen to constituents’ changing attitudes on the issue of Israel and Palestine, such a shift wasn’t immediately obvious from the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis last month.
Recent polls have shown 78% of Democrats support recognizing the State of Palestine, which three-quarters of United Nations member states—including some of the United States’ closest allies—already do. Similarly, 75% of Democratic voters oppose sending additional military aid to Israel, which is already illegal, according to Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, which bars the United States from providing military assistance to countries blocking humanitarian aid.
Still, at its August meeting, the DNC Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution calling for recognizing Palestine and suspending military aid with a decisive margin.
Following the defeat of the resolution, which had been endorsed by College Democrats and other progressive constituencies, and rejecting the sponsors’ offers to compromise on the language, DNC Chair Ken Martin and 17 other top party leaders successfully pushed through a different resolution which, while advocating a two-state solution, insisted the creation of a Palestinian state only come “through direct bilateral negotiations.” Critics, however, note that no such direct Israeli-Palestinian talks have taken place for more than a decade while the current Israeli government categorically rules out Palestinian statehood. Combined with the DNC’s objection to conditioning aid to Israel, this appears to have been a de facto endorsement of ongoing Israeli control over and colonization of the occupied territories.
While the party leadership’s resolution specifically condemned Hamas for its October 7, 2023 terrorist attack, calling the killing of 1,200 Israelis a “massacre,” it did not condemn Israel’s killing of over 50 times as many Palestinians, referring to their deaths in the passive voice and not even saying who did the killing—the resolution only noted the “loss” of tens of thousands of lives in “the war between Israel and Hamas.” The resolution also implied that Hamas was equally responsible for the growing famine in Gaza as was the Israeli government, which is imposing the siege on the enclave. The resolution’s call for a ceasefire was linked to the unconditional release of the remaining Israeli hostages while failing to call on Israel to release the estimated nearly 5,000 Palestinians held without charge in Israeli prisons.
However, that resolution never even made it to the full DNC. Aware of the backlash following the two votes, Martin immediately withdrew his resolution from consideration. Recognizing the vote’s potential impact, the DNC chair for the first time acknowledged that “there’s a divide in our party on this issue,” saying, “This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue, calls for shared advocacy.” He then announced a taskforce “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this” to help formulate the party’s position on Israel and Palestine.
The willingness to finally challenge the party’s traditional blank check to the Israeli government may be tactical: Increasing numbers of Democrats, particularly younger voters, are not just questioning Israeli policies, but Zionism itself.
There is likely no other issue where the party leadership is as out of sync with its base. Allison Minnerly, a young DNC member who sponsored the defeated resolution, noted how only 8% of registered Democrats support the party’s current position in support of Israel’s war on Gaza. And the defeat was not for lack of mobilization: Members of the committee received hundreds of thousands of emails encouraging support for Minnerly’s resolution.
Harold Meyerson, editor at-large for The American Prospect, noted, “We’ve been here before: widespread Democratic opposition to an outrageous war, particularly among the young, while a good chunk of the party’s establishment remains unwilling to halt US involvement in that conflict. In the ’60s, that was Vietnam. Today, it’s Gaza.”
According to James Zogby, a longtime DNC member and advocate of Palestinian rights, the Minneapolis meeting should be seen in a somewhat positive light as a result of the unprecedented level of debate—and the fact that Martin felt obliged to withdraw his resolution. In a statement following the meeting, Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, wrote that the outcome should be seen as “a recognition of the shifting tides within the party and the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable. Supporters of Palestinian rights should understand that this was a victory and an important step forward in the long struggle for justice.”
In addition, there are signs of a real shift among Democratic officials, even in Washington. While Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer, Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, and most others in the congressional leadership still strongly advocate arming and supporting the Israeli government, for the first time a majority of Democratic senators voted in favor of an unsuccessful resolution earlier this summer to block US President Donald Trump’s proposal to send additional bombs and missiles to further destroy Gaza. As a result of the dramatic shift among Democratic voters in recent months regarding US policy toward Israel and Palestine, it appears that at least some Democratic politicians are now becoming more scared of their constituents than they are of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Notably, increasing numbers of Jewish Democrats in Congress are calling for suspending offensive military aid to Israel, as are some Democrats who previously received AIPAC funding and supported the group’s unwavering support for the Netanyahu government.
Just as Democratic officials became more willing to oppose the Vietnam War once it was being waged by Republican Richard Nixon instead of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, Democratic members of Congress today are appearing more willing to challenge Trump’s support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than they were former President Joe Biden’s.
With over two-thirds of registered Democrats saying Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide or are “akin to genocide” (nine times those saying otherwise), the party’s 2024 platform, which insisted that billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional military aid to Israel remain “ironclad,” is becoming increasingly controversial. And the Democratic Party’s longstanding position of prioritizing the national rights and security interests of Israelis over Palestinians is harder to defend when polling shows only 12% of registered Democrats say their sympathies are more with Israel.
By appearing to put the profits of arms manufacturers above the lives of Palestinian children, this refusal to condition offensive military aid could subject Israel hawks to primary challengers or result in lower turnout for incumbents in the general election.
Liberal Zionist groups like J Street are now for the first time supporting some restrictions on military aid and are trying to push the Democratic Party to take a more critical position against Netanyahu, the war on Gaza, and the occupation of Palestine. A number of state Democratic parties, even in swing states like North Carolina, have gone on record calling for a suspension of military aid to Israel.
Historically, the Democratic Party leadership has initially been out of line with its constituents on key foreign policy issues, including in Vietnam, Central America, Southern Africa, East Timor, Iraq and, Afghanistan, as well as on the nuclear arms race.
The willingness to finally challenge the party’s traditional blank check to the Israeli government may be tactical: Increasing numbers of Democrats, particularly younger voters, are not just questioning Israeli policies, but Zionism itself. There is also a growing sense among progressive Democrats that, with increasing colonization of the West Bank by Israeli settlers, it may be a too late for a viable two-state solution and the focus should be on ending Israeli apartheid and creating a single binational state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
As a result, there is growing recognition that if party leaders do not explicitly break with Netanyahu, Democratic voters may demand that Democratic candidates in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond take outright anti-Israel positions.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has said that arms transfers to Israel is “going to be a defining issue in the Democratic Party in the midterms and for 2028.” Already, potential 2028 contenders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Khanna, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have gone on record supporting conditioning further arms transfers.
Meanwhile, in New York City, long a bastion of the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, Democrats have nominated Zohran Mamdani, a vocal critic of Israel, to be their nominee for mayor.
It is not just the undeniable horror of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and increasing settler violence in the West Bank that are responsible for this shift. Credit should also be given to the widespread popular mobilization against US support for Netanyahu, not only from traditional pro-Palestine groups, but mainstream liberal and progressive organizations which had traditionally avoided the subject. Over 20 prominent groups aligned with the Democratic Party have formed the Reject AIPAC Coalition to push Democratic candidates to refuse money from AIPAC, an influential right-wing Zionist organization.
For example, Peace Action, the largest multi-issue peace group, has long taken solid positions regarding Israel and Palestine, but only rarely made it a priority, and their PAC was willing to endorse supporters of Israel’s wars and occupation if they were progressive on other foreign policy issues. Now, however, they have been among the leading groups mobilizing against US support for Netanyahu, having made it their number one issue over the past two years, and are pushing hard to restrict US arms transfers. They are currently spearheading support for the Block the Bombs Act in Congress.
Jon Rainwater, Peace Action’s executive director noted: “How can Sen. Chuck Schumer lead the Democratic Party against Trumpism if he sides with Bibi Netanyahu’s worst authoritarian instincts…? How can someone like Sen. Cory Booker give anti-authoritarian speeches about fighting ‘for the moral soul of the nation’ while he votes to keep the US complicit in starving a people and other war crimes?”
There can be major political costs if Democratic candidates refuse to side with the majority of their constituents. Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election due to a major drop-off in Democratic voters from four years earlier. One poll indicated that the single biggest reason cited by voters who had cast their ballots for Biden in 2020 but didn’t back Harris in 2024 was the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, which Harris was seen to support.
Historically, the Democratic Party leadership has initially been out of line with its constituents on key foreign policy issues, including in Vietnam, Central America, Southern Africa, East Timor, Iraq and, Afghanistan, as well as on the nuclear arms race. Eventually, however, the party’s base has been able to force changes in position. It is looking increasingly likely that such a change may be in store regarding Israel and Palestine.
The question is how long it will take—and how many more Palestinians will have to die before it becomes a reality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Dangerous Folly of Labeling Mexican Cartels 'Terrorist Organizations'
Combining the failed strategies of the war on terror and the war on drugs is not just misguided—it’s doubling down on failure.
Feb 25, 2025
In the capricious tapestry that is U.S. foreign policy, you can find a recurring pattern: Washington champions sovereignty as a holy principle of the international order when it aligns with its interests—think Ukraine under Biden—but casually disregards it when inconvenient.
The latest thread in this tapestry is last Thursday’s unprecedented State Department decision to formally designate eight groups, including major Mexican drug cartels such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). Beneath the Trumpian tough-on-crime pose lies a policy that threatens to violate Mexico’s sovereignty and destabilize a vital relationship, and reinforces the imperialist tendency that has caused so much damage here in the U.S. and across the globe.
Labeling cartels as FTOs isn’t just a symbolic gesture; it opens the door for military intervention under the guise of counterterrorism. The U.S. could justify drone strikes or cross-border raids without Mexico’s consent—a blatant affront to its sovereignty. President Claudia Sheinbaum highlighted: “This classification should not serve as a pretext for the United States to invade our sovereignty.” Any such military intervention would violate Congress’s constitutional war powers, but Trump is unlikely to respect such legal niceties.
The desire to rise out of extreme poverty can not be bombed out of existence.
Elon Musk has made this clear. Musk recently declared on his social media platform that the FTO designation would make cartels “eligible for drone strikes,” a comment that is both legally dubious and deeply unsettling.
They’re Entrepreneurial Criminals, Not Terrorist Ideologues
Mexican cartels are not terrorists in the way most people understand that word. They’re not trying to overthrow governments or spread extremist beliefs. Yes, they commit horrific acts of violence—killings, kidnappings, extortion—but their primary motive is profit, not ideology. As the narcocorrido (“drug ballad,” a musical genre popular on both sides of the border) "Clave Privada" by Banda el Recodo goes:
I was poor for a long time
Many people humiliated me
I began to earn money...
Things are flipped around now
Now they call me boss.
Understanding the driver of these cartels isn’t rocket science: it’s all about the Miguelitos (i.e. the 1000 peso note). Imposing travel bans might inconvenience cartel leaders but it won’t dismantle their billion-dollar empires. The terrorist designation is unlikely to even cut profit margins because many cartels are already designated as transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), so the FTO designation does not provide significant new policy tools to target their finances.
Drone attacks are unlikely to stop a notoriously violent business where cartel leaders are already frequently killed in assassinations by competitors or shootouts with government forces. The war on terror has shown to the U.S. that “Decapitate the Kingpin” is a loser’s game. In fact, Mexico’s own “kingpin strategy” targeting and elimination of high-ranking cartel members has created power vacuums and increased violence. Combining the failed strategies of the war on terror and the war on drugs is not just misguided—it’s doubling down on failure.
The desire to rise out of extreme poverty can not be bombed out of existence. Meanwhile, the other main drivers of this problem are illicit markets fueled by U.S. demand for drugs and corruption within Mexico—issues that require smarter policies to address. Words matter in policymaking. Using “terrorist” as a catch-all term is already destructive and distorting, from the U.S. “war on terror” to the Netanyahu-Biden-Trump war in Gaza to China’s oppression of the Uighur in Xinjiang. This action exacerbates the problem.
The Imperialist Echo
There’s something disturbingly familiar about this whole idea—a familiar whiff of paternalism. For decades, the U.S. has intervened in Latin America under various pretexts: fighting communism during the Cold War, waging war on drugs in the 1980s and 1990s, and now combating “terrorism.” The results have often been disastrous for the region. Designating cartels as FTOs feels like another chapter in this playbook: framing another country’s problems as existential threats to justify American imperialism. So long liberal internationalism, hello Make the Monroe Doctrine Great Again.
This approach doesn’t work in today’s interconnected world. Problems associated with drug trafficking—and migration—don’t respect borders; they require multilateral solutions rooted in trust and mutual respect—not unilateral declarations from Washington. Meanwhile, Trump is cutting thoughtful, nonviolent programs like U.S. funding for an organization that has reduced the number of children recruited by gangs to help move drugs and migrants across the border. Trump froze another program targeting fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking at key ports.
A Smarter Path Forward
None of this is meant to downplay the seriousness of cartel violence or its devastating impact on both sides of the border. Tackling this issue requires nuance and humility—especially from the U.S.. Instead of designating cartels as FTOs, policymakers should focus on strategies that address root causes: reducing demand for drugs through treatment programs; cracking down on gun trafficking from the U.S. into Mexico as some members of Congress are working to do; supporting anti-corruption efforts within Mexico; and strengthening bilateral cooperation rather than undermining it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Urges Senators to Stop 'Illegal, Ineffective' US Airstrikes in Yemen
"Instead of bombing Yemen," one group said, "the U.S. should be securing a cease-fire in Gaza and restoring humanitarian aid for people across the Middle East."
Jul 11, 2024
An anti-war coalition of over 50 groups this week wrote to four U.S. senators who have raised alarm about American airstrikes in Yemen and the Red Sea to call for legislation that would stop "illegal, ineffective, and deadly unauthorized" bombings.
The coalition on Wednesday wrote to Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Todd Young, (R-Ind.), who in January sent a joint letter to President Joe Biden stressing that "there is no current congressional authorization for offensive U.S. military action against the Houthis" and demanding answers about recent strikes against the group.
"We are grateful for your long-standing efforts in support of both ending U.S. participation in the war in Yemen, as well as your defense of Congress' war powers, including your joint letter," the coalition wrote to the senators. "We write today to urge you to take necessary actions to defend the role of Congress in authorizing war and military action, as the framers of our Constitution intended, and to introduce a Yemen War Powers Resolution to this end."
The coalition includes Action Corps, CodePink, Democracy for the Arab World Now, Demand Progress, Democratic Socialists of America International Committee, Just Foreign Policy, National Iranian American Council, Peace Action, RootsAction.org, Veterans for Peace, and dozens of other groups across the ideological spectrum.
"Unfortunately, about six months after the strikes began, there is scant evidence that the strikes have been either strategically smart or successful, as you correctly predicted when you wrote that the unauthorized strikes 'will not deter the Houthi attacks,'" the coalition continued, citing the January letter.
As the groups detailed:
Far from being deterred, the Houthis have actually expanded the range of their attacks, with an attack in late April targeting an Israeli-linked ship sailing 375 miles off the coast of Yemen. More recently, Houthi attacks have shown a 'significant increase in effectiveness,' according to security firm Ambrey, including through the use of drone boats and double-tap strikes. Houthi military officials have announced plans for further escalation of their attacks if no cease-fire is reached in Gaza. All of this was foreseen by experts, who widely predicted that the U.S. strikes would only strengthen the Houthis' narrative, contributing to greater popularity both at home and across the Muslim world, and helping them enlist tens of thousands of new fighters.
"To our knowledge, the administration has not even made a good-faith attempt to engage with the valid constitutional concerns and substantive policy critiques you have raised alongside dozens of House members, experts, and advocates," the coalition noted. "This leads us to believe that the administration has effectively conceded that it does not have valid legal and constitutional authority to engage in these strikes."
"The strikes have nonetheless continued unabated for months, with hundreds of missiles launched in Yemen, including an attack on May 30th that killed at least 16 people and injured about 42 people," the groups added. "This threatens to deny the American people critical congressional debate and oversight regarding this dangerous and strategically dubious military action, and could be cited by the executive branch to attempt to justify similar or even more expansive unauthorized military actions in other contexts in the future."
The coalition is calling on the bipartisan group of senators to "to move swiftly to rein in these unauthorized and unconstitutional strikes by introducing a War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. participation from hostilities in Yemen, until or unless Congress authorizes such action."
Multiple coalition members echoed the letter's demands on social media Thursday. Peace Action declared that "Congress needs to flex its constitutional duty to rein in unauthorized U.S. missile strikes."
Action Corps emphasized that Biden—who is seeking reelection in November against former Republican President Donald Trump—"has no authority to continue dropping bombs on Yemen."
"With each illegal bombing, peace is delayed, and more children are starved to death. It's time for bipartisan action to ensure only Congress can declare war, regardless of which party is in office," the group added. "Instead of bombing Yemen, the U.S. should be securing a cease-fire in Gaza and restoring humanitarian aid for people across the Middle East."
Keep ReadingShow Less
An Urgent Call to Congress: Cease-Fire Now and Avoid a Wider War
In a grassroots effort, about 450 individuals from 50 organizations are participating in lobby visits with over 100 congressional offices, at an opportune time as policies on the conflict are in flux.
Apr 12, 2024
Since the horrific attack by Hamas last October 7 and the astonishingly destructive Israeli response in Gaza, concerned individuals and organizations worldwide have mobilized to demand an end to the carnage, a potential genocide which is still accelerating rapidly.
In this regard, Peace Action, a 67-year-old grassroots peace, disarmament, and social justice organization that promotes diplomacy over militarism, was hardly unique in issuing calls for restraint. Its grassroots network of local groups around the country sprang into action, organizing protests and vigils, public meetings, educational webinars, coalition gatherings, and lobby meetings with congressional offices demanding a cease-fire, halting U.S. weapons transfers to Israel, surging humanitarian relief to Gaza, and averting a wider regional war.
Around the end of the year, Peace Action’s national staff saw a need for coordinating grassroots advocacy and launched an effort to get state level coalitions to advocate a cease-fire, diplomacy, and an end to blank check support for Israel. To our surprise, we got a quick response from local organizers in 18 states, who built ad hoc coalitions to lobby their U.S. senators.
“I knew that Congress needed to hear as many of these voices as possible, so when the opportunity arose to help organize a nationwide grassroots effort to lobby Congress, I signed up right away.”
“There are many national and local organizations who have advocated peace between Israel and Palestine for decades, including us,” said Peace Action’s Executive Director Jon Rainwater. “Local coalitions were built or strengthened after October 7, but there seemed to be a gap in national coordination of grassroots advocacy toward Congress, one of the toughest aspects of this work. We were pleased to see we could contribute to bringing groups and individuals together to address this need.”
The effort has since broadened into the Cease-Fire Now Grassroots Network, currently holding virtual and in-person Advocacy Days to give voice to the general public support in the U.S. for a cease-fire. About 450 individuals from 50 organizations and 40 states are participating in lobby visits with over 100 congressional offices, at an opportune time as congressional and executive branch policies on the conflict are in flux. In the next few weeks, Congress may take votes on whether to fund military aid to Israel and/or to halt, condition, or restrict U.S. weapons transfers, and hopefully to restore funding to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to help avert famine in Gaza.
Participating groups include the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the Center for Jewish Nonviolence, Arab American Civic Council, and Progressive Democrats of America. In addition to the lobby visits this month, the American Friends Service Committee is organizing local Tax Day actions with the call No Tax Dollars for War Crimes.
Among the many organizations in the nascent grassroots network, Doctors Against Genocide stands out as a new, unique actor, as the group only formed last fall.
One of the first lobby meetings in the ongoing Advocacy Days was with the office of U.S. Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), a progressive targeted for defeat by conservatives and the “pro-Israel” group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Peace Action is also part of the recently launched Reject AIPAC coalition to expose and oppose its malign influence on U.S. politics, particularly in this year’s elections.
As expected, the meeting went well, as Rep. Lee is a strong advocate of a cease-fire and humanitarian assistance to Gaza, but advocates were somewhat surprised to hear of flak she has gotten in her district for her pro-peace positions, and discussed ways to bring constituencies together to help overcome divisiveness.
David Gibson, staff coordinator for Peace, Justice, Sustainability Now, who organized the meeting with Pennsylvania activists, observed, “Meeting with policymakers like Rep. Summer Lee who are actively engaged in community dialogue is essential to a well functioning democracy. We need congresspeople like her in office regardless of your political outlook. When you hear that democracy is on the ballot, it's not a joke.”
Myriam Sabbaghi, National Organizing Director for the National Iranian American Council, described her organization’s participation, “As an organization representing Iranian Americans, we know that so long as this conflict goes on there is a major risk of spillover to regional war that could entangle the U.S., Iran, and Israel in a brutal conflict. Already, the U.S. has bombed groups backed by Iran in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, and Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus has once again dramatically escalated tensions. Some of our members lived through war and many have friends and family who would be impacted if a full-blown war breaks out. We all have a duty to stand up and demand a cease-fire now, and we are proud to join with so many great organizations especially during our Cease-Fire Advocacy Days in echoing this call.”
Sara Avery, a volunteer organizer with the Friends Committee on National Legislation’s Colorado Advocacy Team, aptly voiced her motivation for participating in the Advocacy Days thusly: “Maybe more than any recent conflict, everyone I know is beside themselves about the horror in Gaza and the imminent danger of a wider war. I knew that Congress needed to hear as many of these voices as possible, so when the opportunity arose to help organize a nationwide grassroots effort to lobby Congress, I signed up right away. In this horrible time, being part of this grassroots network is what keeps me moving forward toward peaceful and just solutions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
20 Groups Demand Passage of Bowman Amendment to Disclose Cost of US Military Footprint
"This amendment is crucial as taxpayers and other citizens remain concerned—and inadequately informed—about the cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wide range of U.S. military activities abroad."
Aug 28, 2023
U.S. lawmakers remain on August recess but 20 advocacy groups on Monday wrote to top Democrats and Republicans on key congressional panels to demand passage of "commonsense, noncontroversial" legislation to provide the public with greater transparency on U.S. military spending.
When members of Congress return to Capitol Hill next month, they will continue reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024—a process that involves intense disagreements over right-wing policies that Republicans want to stuff into the $886 billion package.
The advocacy organizations—including Amnesty International USA, Demand Progress Action, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, RootsAction.com, Veterans for Peace, and Win Without War—came together to support an amendment to the NDAA proposed by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).
Writing to Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Ranking Member Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the groups explained how Bowman's proposal has its roots in the 2015 Cost of War Act led by former Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.).
Last year, the late congressman's successor, Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), "carried forward this legacy by introducing new Cost of War legislation expanding the scope of John Lewis' work to include the cost to U.S. taxpayers for any overseas contingency operations," the letter notes, arguing that its inclusion in a previous NDAA "demonstrates the broad-based support for accountability and transparency around U.S. defense spending."
For the FY23 NDAA, Bowman introduced "the latest update to John Lewis' Cost of War legislation," an amendment that "requires reporting on a wider range of costs to fully encompass the U.S. military footprint abroad that is not covered by the former two pieces of legislation," the letter details. "This includes the price of training and assisting partner forces, maintaining overseas bases, paying contractors who provide goods and services in support of operations, and all overseas military operations."
Bowman's measure passed the House but was ultimately left out of the final NDAA. The groups behind the letter to panel leaders now hope it will remain included in the next one, writing that "this amendment is crucial as taxpayers and other citizens remain concerned—and inadequately informed—about the cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wide range of U.S. military activities abroad, including those that fall short of active military missions such as wars or contingency operations."
"Many Americans want great public scrutiny and debate about the balance our nation strikes between spending on our military presence abroad and spending on other domestic priorities," the groups stressed. "This includes spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure, as well as concerns about the rate of taxation or national debt required to sustain the U.S. overseas presence."
"These debates will only become more relevant as our military budget approaches the $1 trillion mark," the organizations added, "and it is important that the American people have the necessary transparency and data about these costs to engage in our nation's democratic decision-making process around such questions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Industry 'Celebrating Christmas Early' as House Passes $858 Billion NDAA
"There is no justification to throw... $858 billion at the Pentagon when we're told we can't afford child tax credit expansion, universal paid leave, or other basic human necessities," said the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "End of story."
Dec 08, 2022
Peace advocates on Thursday slammed the House of Representatives' passage of a mammoth $858 billion military spending bill as an early holiday gift for the Pentagon and the weapons corporations who benefit from the United States' ongoing--but largely forgotten--War on Terror.
"While working families are being crushed by inflation, we shouldn't be spending $45 billion MORE than the president requested in the NDAA."
House lawmakers voted 350-80 in favor of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with 45 Democrats and 35 Republicans voting "no."
The new NDAA authorizes an $80 billion military spending increase over the 2022 bill, and $118 billion more than when President Joe Biden took office in 2021. The 2023 allocation is more than the combined military budgets of China, India, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea, according to the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). It's also more than the annual gross domestic product of countries including Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey, based on United Nations figures.
The $858 billion figure does not include additional spending on the U.S. nuclear arsenal, contributions to Ukraine's defense, or veterans' benefits.
Progressives including Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Marc Pocan (D-Wis.), Katie Porter (D-Calif.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) were among those who rejected the bill.
"While working families are being crushed by inflation, we shouldn't be spending $45 billion MORE than the president requested in the NDAA," tweeted Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), who opposed the bill. "Certainly not on top of an already bloated $800+ billion Pentagon budget full of lobbyist giveaways. I voted NO."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), another "no" vote, said he could not support a bill whose "topline remains billions of dollars above the president's request, adding to an already bloated Pentagon budget."
Calling the bill an "absolute disgrace," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen tweeted that "increasing the budget for inflation is a lousy excuse. The minimum wage has been $7.25 for over a decade. Why is there always money for the military-industrial complex, but a livable wage is somehow 'too expensive'?"
"There is no justification to throw... $858 billion at the Pentagon when we're told we can't afford child tax credit expansion, universal paid leave, or other basic human necessities," the group added. "End of story."
Cole Harrison, executive director of Massachusetts Peace Action (MPA), said in a statement that "Waltham-based Raytheon and its fellow merchant of death, Lockheed, are celebrating Christmas early."
"Bring our war dollars home," Harrison added, noting that the fight for the bill is not over. "We don't need more weapons and more war. We need international respect and cooperation. We urge senators to vote 'no' on this disgraceful misappropriation of taxpayers' money."
MPA further noted that "the Pentagon recently failed its fifth consecutive annual audit, yet House members were quick to shower the unaccountable agency with taxpayers' money," and that "2.9 million children in the United States were lifted out of poverty in 2021 by the child tax credit, but that program expired after a year, and now our elected officials have decided to spend an equivalent amount on increasing the war budget."
Anti-war activists call on people to contact their senators and urge them to vote "no" on the NDAA--even while acknowledging that the mammoth package is all but sure to pass in the upper chamber.
Writing for the Qunicy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, National Taxpayers Union director of federal policy Andrew Lautz said that "Congress is rushing to pass the NDAA over the next week or two, before they go home for the holidays."
"Lawmakers will all but certainly pass a massive increase to the defense budget approved by members of both parties in both chambers of the legislature--at least $80 billion in total above 2022 levels, and that doesn't include tens of billions of dollars the Pentagon has received to combat Russia's invasion of Ukraine," he said.
"If so," Lautz added, "then Christmas will come early for the nation's military brass, who often get to spend without consequences from lawmakers who control their purse strings, and defense contractors, who benefit mightily from the taxpayer-funded largesse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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