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
quincy institute for responsible statecraft
Hegseth Drops New Ad for Proposed $1.5 Trillion Pentagon Budget as Poll Shows 60% Opposed
"What we're seeing is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe," said a researcher at Brown University's Costs of War Project.
May 14, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday released yet another ad pitching President Donald Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget, as new polling showed major skepticism over the idea.
In his latest pitch for the record-breaking defense budget, the former Fox News host insists that "America is not in decline," even though the US has been unable to compel Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite having spent nearly $1 trillion on defense in 2025.
"We remain the strongest military power on Earth," Hegseth continued. "But that power requires renewal. And with global threats that are constantly evolving, it's time to make a $1.5 trillion investment."
The $1.5 trillion investment is a GENERATIONAL DOWN PAYMENT on America’s national defense.
This investment guarantees the United States maintains overwhelming strength and unmatched deterrence against any adversary for generations to come. pic.twitter.com/2zOSlZkzNr
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) May 14, 2026
A $1.5 trillion military budget would be over 50% more than the 2025 US defense budget and more than four times the money spent on defense by China, the world’s second-biggest defense spender.
Among other things, Hegseth said that the budget would invest $18 billion into Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense shield, which the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday estimated would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
Hegseth also said that the Pentagon would be increasing its investment in artificial intelligence by "800%," although it's not at the moment clear how well AI helps militaries effectively fight wars.
The defense secretary concluded his video by insisting that "we are expanding our strength, we are restoring our deterrence, and we are putting America first."
USA Today reported on Thursday that a new poll conducted by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University finds that nearly 60% of Americans think the proposed Trump Pentagon budget is too large, including 40% who say $1.5 trillion is "much too high" to spend on defense.
Breaking the figures down by party, 87% of Democrats said the defense budget was too high, along with 54% of independents, and even 30% of Republicans.
Jennifer Greenburg, a researcher with Brown's Costs of War Project, told USA Today that Americans were broadly skeptical that plunging more taxpayer money into the Pentagon is really necessary given that the US already doles out more for defense than the next four biggest spenders—China, Russia, Germany, and India—combined.
"In real time, I think what we're seeing," said Greenberg, "is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe."
In a column published by The New York Times on Wednesday, longtime national security reporter Noah Shachtman argued that Hegseth's $1.5 trillion proposal was "less like a budget and more like a trip to an endless casino buffet" in which the Pentagon spends money in "gut-busting proportions."
Shachtman also noted that the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget comes at a time when the Trump administration has wrecked traditional oversight mechanisms, thus making waste and fraud far more likely at a Pentagon that's never passed an audit.
"One of their early actions was to fire and replace the Pentagon’s inspector general, whose office looks into claims of fraud and abuse in military contracting," Shachtman explained. "The independent office that tests whether our weapons actually work has been gutted."
Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued in an analysis published on Tuesday that Hegseth's budget pitch at congressional hearings this week was particularly baffling because there is really no imperative behind it on par with the Cold War or the post-9/11 defense buildup.
"Despite presenting no strategic necessity for the largest year-over-year Pentagon spending increase since World War II," Freeman wrote, "Hegseth repeatedly claimed the $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget was a sound financial decision, arguing in the Senate hearing that 'at every level we have made it a fiscally responsible budget.' Yet, the fact is that the entirety of this proposed increase in Pentagon spending would be deficit financed, effectively going on Uncle Sam’s credit card."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Escalating Attacks in Strait of Hormuz Risk Return to 'Full-Blown War'
"The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a problem CAUSED by US military power, not one US military power can fix," said one critic.
May 04, 2026
Iran on Monday launched missiles and drones at US military forces and merchant ships after President Donald Trump announced plans to help vessels navigate the Strait of Hormuz.
According to The Washington Post, the Iranian strikes "were carried out just after Central Command announced that two U.S.-flagged commercial vessels passed through the strait, the first known to have done so since the ceasefire, closely following the passage of two US destroyers."
Maj. Gen. Ali Abdollahi, a senior Iranian commander, warned in a statement given to the Iranian Mehr News Agency that his country's military "will attack any foreign force, particularly the US military, if it attempts to approach or enter the Strait of Hormuz."
Trump responded to the Iranian attacks by once again threatening to carry out war crimes, telling Fox News' Trey Yingst that Iran will "be blown off the face of the Earth" if it attacks US military ships.
Trump's latest threat comes just over a month after the president delivered an openly genocidal threat against Iran, warning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," if Iran's leaders didn't give into his demands.
Amid the resumption of hostilities, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) warned that the US and Iran could be stumbling into a dangerous new phase of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from the US Congress.
"In seemingly daring Iran to fire on US vessels by testing their restriction of naval traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," NIAC wrote in a social media post, "the US risks instigating a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident that would serve as a spark for deeper military hostilities. The consistent rejection of diplomatic off-ramps and use of brinksmanship to seek to enhance leverage at the negotiating table is a losing game that risks tilting the US and Iran back into full-blown war."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, relayed comments from an unidentified Iranian analyst who said Iran's decision to fire "warning shots" at US military vessels represented a move to a more aggressive strategic posture.
"If Trump plans to restart the war, Iran will not wait for Trump to do so before it retaliates," Parsi wrote. "It will strike preemptively in a measured way to deter Trump."
Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, called attention to Trump's claims that his escort mission to get two commercial vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz was a "success," even as it led to reported Iranian strikes on ports in the allied United Arab Emirates.
"Reads like another desperate attempt to steady markets as events suggest otherwise," Toossi remarked.
Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said the latest round of hostilities showed the Trump administration was still in denial about what needs to happen to reopen the strait.
"The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a problem CAUSED by US military power, not one US military power can fix," Kavanagh explained. "The sooner Washington accepts this, the sooner we can start working toward a diplomatic resolution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Everyone Looking for Iran War Off-Ramp, Experts Offer 'Exit Plan'
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Mar 27, 2026
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cracks Are Beginning to Show': Even 79% of Trump Voters Want Quick End to Iran War
“While Trump voters by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war."
Mar 18, 2026
War hawks such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are pushing President Donald Trump to keep escalating the war he is waging against Iran, but a new poll of the president's base—those who voted for him in 2024, when he campaigned on "no new wars"—found that doing so would likely anger the steadily shrinking faction of Americans who have thus far continued to support him.
The poll, commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative, found that 79% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 want a swift end to the US and Israel's war in Iran, which began on February 28 when the president abruptly ended talks regarding Iran's nuclear program and joined Israel in attacking the country.
The survey revealed a political reality at odds with Trump's recent claim that "MAGA loves what I’m doing—every aspect of it."
More than a year after they cast votes for Trump, who campaigned relentlessly on making life more affordable for Americans, the poll found that 55% of people who supported the president are concerned about rising gas prices as a result of the war. The average price of gas has been steadily rising since the US and Israel began the war, leading Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the global oil supply flows. As of Wednesday the average price in the US was up to $3.842 per gallon.
Fifty-eight percent of Trump voters said they would oppose sending US troops to fight on the ground in Iran, a step the president is reportedly considering taking in order to seize Iran's crucial oil hub on Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
Just over three-quarters of people who backed Trump in the last election said they supported the president's decision to go to war, but less than a month into the conflict, that number is down eight points from 84% on February 28, according to a Fox News poll at the time.
Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi noted that even the White House is seemingly searching "for an off-ramp from this widening conflict," in which 13 US troops have been killed and 200 have been wounded. More than 1,300 Iranians have been killed, according to the country's ambassador to the United Nations, as well as more than 900 Lebanese civilians, and at least 15 people in Israel.
"Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
Trump said earlier this week that "maybe we shouldn’t be there at all," and his advisers have reportedly been calling on the president to quickly determine an exit plan to avoid a political backlash.
Meanwhile, said Parsi, "neoconservatives are pressuring President Trump to double down on this war. But this poll shows that Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
In Responsible Statecraft, which is published by the Quincy Institute, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos noted that young MAGA voters, whose support was instrumental in delivering the White House for Trump in 2024, are "driving much of the rising opposition to the war among the president's base."
Only 54% of Trump voters aged 18-29 said they supported the war, while 46% opposed it.
"The cracks are beginning to show in President Donald Trump’s base" over the war, wrote Beaucar Vlahos.
Saagar Enjeti, conservative host of the popular Breaking Points podcast, told Responsible Statecraft that "the Republican base is clearly willing to trust President Trump up to a point but remain weary of any potential escalation."
“As evidenced by this polling the wisest move would be to declare victory and end this immediately," he said.
The poll, which was taken between March 12-14, was released a day after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced he was resigning from his position because Iran had "posed no imminent threat to our nation" when Trump began the war. The president, said the longtime Trump loyalist, had attacked Iran "due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
Kent, whom critics noted has ties to white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, is the most prominent Trump administration official to resign from the White House in protest of the president's policies and actions.
On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in her opening statement that the US intelligence community determined that US airstrikes last year "obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment program, before claiming that the president alone can determine whether a country poses an "imminent" threat.
While those who voted for the president "by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war,” said Parsi on Wednesday. “Trump risks losing significant portions of his base if he escalates the war with ground troops and allows the war to further push up gas prices.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Guess I Can Say I Am': Trump Confirms He's Considering Unprovoked Attack on Iran
One analyst predicted Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and attack oil installations "in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels" should the US strike.
Feb 20, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Friday confirmed that he's considering launching an unprovoked military strike against Iran.
According to the New York Times, Trump was asked by reporters on Friday if he was considering attacking Iran, and he replied, "I guess I can say I am considering that."
The US has for weeks been sending fleets of warships, including the world's largest aircraft carrier, to the Middle East in apparent preparation for a massive military operation against Iran.
According to a Friday report from Al Jazeera, the buildup is the largest by the US Air Force in the region since the 2003 Iraq War, and it includes deployments of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air superiority jets, and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
Trump has not given any justification for launching such an attack, nor has he asked the US Congress to approve it, even though the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to declare war.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have been pushing for a vote in the US House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that would require Congress to debate and approve any act of war with Iran.
It is also not clear what goals the president would hope to achieve with the attack. A Thursday CNN report indicated that Trump is now weighing several options ranging from "more targeted strikes to sustained operations that could potentially last for weeks," including "plans to take out Tehran’s leaders."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a Friday analysis of Trump's reported attack plans that there is little chance that the president will be able to achieve a quick victory over Iran simply because the offers he has made to its government are nonstarters.
"Since the US strategy... is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the US," explained Parsi. "The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the US, and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal."
Parsi acknowledged that there is no way Iran can defeat the US militarily, but could "get close to destroying Trump’s presidency before it loses the war" through a number of maneuvers intended to spike the price of oil, including "closing the Strait of Hormuz" and attacking "oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the US."
"This is an extremely risky option for Iran," Parsi conceded, "but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation 'deal' Trump is seeking to force on Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's 'Bomb Magnet' Fleet Could 'Never Sail' and Waste Billions of Dollars: Experts
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," said one critic.
Dec 26, 2025
President Donald Trump on Monday announced that the US Navy is building a new class of warship that will be named after him—but naval warfare experts are warning the project looks like a wasteful boondoggle.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote an analysis of the Trump-branded ships the day after their announcement in which he bluntly predicted that they "will never sail."
Among other things, Cancian argued that the ship being commissioned by the president "will take years to design, cost $9 billion each to build, and contravene the Navy’s new concept of operations, which envisions distributed firepower."
As if that weren't enough, Cancian projected that "a future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water."
Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, also predicted doom for Trump's prized ships, which he said would be too overloaded with the latest cutting-edge technology to be effective at naval combat.
"Every gadget you add to one of these systems is one more thing that can break," Grazier wrote in an analysis published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "When designers lack discipline, as they obviously did while sketching out this latest future boondoggle, a simple mathematical truth asserts itself."
In fact, Grazier felt so confident in his gloomy prognostication for Trump's warships that he told readers they could "take it to the bank."
"The Navy will spend tens of billions of dollars over the course of the next decade on the Trump-class program," he wrote. "At best, the Navy will receive three troublesome ships that will cost more than $10 billion each before then entire scheme is abandoned."
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, flagged a particularly troubling detail of Trump's warship plan in a lengthy analysis published by Forbes on Thursday.
"The most troubling aspect of the proposed Trump-class ships is that they are supposed to carry sea-launched nuclear armed cruise missiles," Hartung explained. "The last thing the US military needs is yet another way to deliver nuclear weapons. And because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are difficult to tell from cruise missiles armed with nonnuclear bombs, there is a danger that and adversary could mistake an attack with a nonnuclear armed missile with a nuclear attack, with devastating consequences."
Hartung also pointed out that the ships, which are projected to cost billions each, are not the only pricey weapons system that Trump is planning to build, as earlier this year he vowed to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system that is projected to cost anywhere from $292 billion and $3.6 trillion.
"It’s time for Congress to do its oversight job and slow down these 'golden' programs until the administration can make a plausible case that they can be both affordable and effective," Hartung concluded. "The odds are against them."
Bernard Loo, senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said in an interview with CNBC that Trump's proposed ships appear to be "a prestige project more than anything else."
Loo argued that the proposed ships' massive size, with each projected to displace more than 35,000 tons while measuring more than 840 feet, would make each vessel a "bomb magnet" for adversaries.
"The size and the prestige value of it all make it an even more tempting target," Loo added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘A Mistake of Radioactive Proportions’: Markey Pushes Bill to Block Trump From Testing Nuclear Bombs
"This is a reckless directive from Trump that will only make the country and the world less safe and lead to a terrible new nuclear arms race," Markey said.
Oct 30, 2025
President Donald Trump's surprise order to resume nuclear weapons testing has set off concerns about a potential global arms race, but one Democratic senator is working to stop it from happening.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday introduced emergency legislation to prevent the president from resuming nuclear weapons tests, which experts have warned could undermine global geopolitical stability as more nations could respond by ramping up weapons tests of their own.
The text of Markey's bill is just two pages and it states that "none of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2026, or authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year before fiscal year 2026, and available for obligation as of the date of the enactment of this act, may be obligated or expended to conduct or make preparations for any explosive nuclear weapons test that produces any yield."
In a statement promoting the bill, Markey warned that restarting nuclear weapons tests would be "a mistake of radioactive proportions," which Congress should intervene to block.
"The United States has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992, and there is absolutely no need to resume," Markey said. "A Trumpatomics plan would provoke Russia and China to resume nuclear testing, and China in particular has much more to gain from this than does the United States. This is a reckless directive from Trump that will only make the country and the world less safe and lead to a terrible new nuclear arms race."
Markey, who co-chairs the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, also urged the US Senate to finally ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was first adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996 and which has been ratified by 178 other nations.
The UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) on Thursday put out a statement condemning Trump's weapons testing announcement, which it described as "a wake-up call that the threat of nuclear war is real and accelerating."
The organization also pointed out that resuming nuclear tests was not the only way that the US under the leadership of both Trump and former President Joe Biden is increasing the risks of nuclear war. Among other things, CND pointed to risks posed by the "Golden Dome" missile shield being pushed by Trump, as well as the AUKUS Agreement signed during Biden's tenure that gives Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines.
CND general secretary Sophie Bol warned of the dire consequences of a global nuclear arms race and said "it is absolutely critical that we rachet up the political pressure to make these world leaders—including the British government—step back from this nuclear escalation."
In an editorial published by Common Dreams on Thursday, Pavel Devyatkin, nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued that the resumption of nuclear weapons tests "marks a dangerous turning point in international security."
In particular, Devyatkin argued that resuming such tests would imperil chances of extending the nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia that has been in effect since 2011.
"The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last agreement limiting US and Russian nuclear weapons, expires in February 2026," he explained. "For over a decade, New START has kept a cap on deployed warheads and compelled both sides to transparency through data exchanges and inspections. If this agreement expires, there would be no binding limits on the two countries’ nuclear arsenals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Netanyahu Joint Remarks Ripped as 'Litany of Lies... Not a Promising Foundation for Peace'
One critic noted Trump's plan for Gaza "contains numerous opportunities for Netanyahu to renege on his commitments, as he has repeatedly done in the past."
Sep 29, 2025
US President Donald Trump announced on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to a peace plan to end the war in Gaza—but many critics were skeptical that anything good would come from it.
The plan, which the White House released on Monday, requires Hamas to return all remaining Israeli hostages it took in the October 7, 2023 attacks in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli custody.
The plan also mandates that Hamas have no role in governing Gaza after the war, as responsibility for running the exclave would be handed over on a temporary basis to "a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza."
Notably, the Trump proposal dropped previous demands he'd made about expelling Palestinians from their land, and it stated that "no one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return." The plan also says that "Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza," even though Netanyahu and his government for months have said they intend to take full control of Gaza.
The plan drew some immediate criticism from skeptics, however.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), attacked the Trump plan for not being a serious proposal to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
"Trump and Netanyahu’s remarks today were a litany of lies about the last 30 years, not a promising foundation for peace," Duss said. "Despite his claim of being close to a deal, Trump's statement that Israel will have 'full US backing' to 'finish the job' in Gaza if his plan is not agreed to stood out most clearly. This would be more of what we have seen not only the last nine months, but the last two years, as the United States has unconditionally armed and subsidized a genocide in Gaza."
Duss welcomed Trump seemingly taking the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza off the table as part of his plan, but added that it also "contains numerous opportunities for Netanyahu to renege on his commitments, as he has repeatedly done in the past."
Drop Site News' Ryan Grim appeared equally skeptical that the Trump plan would hold up, and he wrote in a post on X he's waiting to see "what Netanyahu does to scuttle the deal once he leaves the White House."
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, observed in a social media post that Trump had successfully pressured Netanyahu to apologize to the government of Qatar for launching an attack against Hamas leaders on its soil earlier this month.
"That Netanyahu was forced to apologize to the emir of Qatar by phone from the White House with Trump in the room shows the leverage that the US has over Israel when it chooses to," he wrote. "Too often it chooses otherwise. It could've chosen not to support the genocide in the first place."
Drop Site News reported shortly after the deal was announced that the governments of Qatar and Egypt have given it to Hamas, which said it would study the proposal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mass Walkout Leaves UN General Assembly Chamber Mostly 'Empty' for Netanyahu Speech
"I don't recall seeing such a large walkout for quite some time at UNGA," said one observer. "Israel has chosen to be a pariah and is increasingly treated as such by the international community."
Sep 26, 2025
Dozens of delegates in the United Nations General Assembly walked out in protest on Friday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to deliver an address.
Video posted on X by Axios reporter Barak Ravid showed United Nations delegates from multiple countries standing up from their seats and exiting the chamber as Netanyahu took to the podium and prepared to deliver his address.
The mass walkout left the assembly hall mostly "empty," Ravid subsequently reported.
🚨🚨🚨Massive protest walk out in the UN general assembly hall as Netanyahu takes the stage pic.twitter.com/toiZncmrRj
— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) September 26, 2025
The protests against Netanyahu came as Israel is causing a famine in Gaza with its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid, which has killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Israel has launched a full invasion of Gaza, and its right-wing government has explicitly said that it plans on expelling all Palestinians who are still living in the exclave. The Israel Defense Forces' assault has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Israel has become increasingly isolated on the international stage in recent weeks, as the governments of France, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have all formally recognized Palestine as an independent state.
New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, who has vowed to arrest the Israeli prime minister on war crimes charges filed last year by the International Criminal Court should he set foot in the city during the progressive's potential mayoral tenure, blasted Netanyahu for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza while again pledging to do everything he could to hold him accountable.
"This morning, Benjamin Netanyahu will address the United Nations—an institution which has concluded his government is committing a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza," he said in a social media post, referring to a UN commission's finding earlier this month. "He arrived in New York after a flight that added hours to its path to circumvent the airspace of countries which might enforce the International Criminal Court's warrant for his arrest."
Mamdani added that "during the course of his speech, another Palestinian child will undoubtedly be killed by the Israeli military in Gaza, as they have been every single hour for nearly two years."
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued that the mass walkout was symbolic of Israel's near-total isolation in the international community.
"I don't recall seeing such a large walkout for quite some time at UNGA," he said. "Israel has chosen to be a pariah and is increasingly treated as such by the international community."
CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin joked that she felt envious of those delegates who left the assembly hall.
"Those who walked out when Netanyahu was speaking at the UN are the fortunate ones," the longtime peace advocate wrote. "Those of us who listened to his speech online are feeling sick. He is such a bold-faced liar and a mass murderer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
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