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
richard blumenthal
‘Yeah, That’s Illegal’: USPS Chief Says States Won't Receive Mail Ballots Unless They Hand Voter Rolls to Trump
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail. That's unacceptable," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
Jun 25, 2026
Postmaster General David Steiner drew the ire of Democratic senators and voting rights advocates on Wednesday when he said that the US Postal Service would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand their voter files to the Trump administration.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the panels ranking member, asked Steiner if USPS would deliver ballots in a state whose government had refused the Trump administration's request for access to its absentee voter list.
"Under our proposed regulation, no," Steiner replied. "We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Peters responded by accusing USPS of creating a rule that "coerces" states into handing their voter files to the federal government even though they are under no legal obligation to do so.
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail," Peters said. "That's unacceptable."
PETERS: Yes or no, if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER: No.
PETERS: So the proposed rule basically coerces states to hand over their… pic.twitter.com/5bnJb5Atnr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2026
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also sparred with Steiner during the hearing, informing the postmaster general that USPS had absolutely no role to play in determining how states conduct their elections.
"You run the Postal Service, you deliver the mail," Blumenthal said. "You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should... This proposed rule is bogus."
Blumenthal demanded Steiner commit to deliver all mail-in ballots to voters in his state regardless of whether it complied with the Trump administration's demands, but the postmaster general said he would not make such a commitment.
"Our proposed rule is subject to litigation," Steiner told him. "We'll see how that all turns out."
"Well, I guess we will see," Blumenthal replied, "but it will probably be in court."
The Founding Fathers didn’t envision USPS reviewing voting ballots or registration. Trump’s Postmaster General refuses to commit to deliver mail-in-ballots without fulfilling Trump’s new bogus, sham review. pic.twitter.com/V3jiBMyGOY
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 24, 2026
Some observers reacted with shock to Steiner's willingness to go along with Trump's latest election-rigging scheme, which they said was patently unconstitutional.
"Yeah, that's illegal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The Post Office can’t refuse to deliver mail to try and get policy concessions."
"We have a Postmaster General who should not be in any position of trust or influence," commented political scientist Norman Ornstein, "a disgraceful traitor to American values."
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signaled his state would challenge the proposed USPS rule.
"Illinois expanded vote-by-mail because we believe voting should be easier, not harder," Pritzker wrote. "Now, Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General is threatening to withhold mail ballots unless states turn over voter rolls. That's not election security. It’s voter suppression."
Political scientist Robert E. Kelly argued that Trump's attack on mail-in voting was a "deeply malign gimmick which makes it so hard to accommodate MAGA within the US political order."
"No one thought to use the mail as a partisan weapon," Kelly wrote. "The laws and norms around mail are poorly known, because no one ever thought to try this gambit before. But now, because Trump insists on politicizing the bureaucracy, this whole thing will go to court just months before the election."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Should Embrace a Deal That Brings Trump's Iran War to an End
Too many congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Jun 24, 2026
Many of the criticisms being leveled against the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran—namely, that it is not that great a deal—are accurate and worthy of attention. But under the disastrous set of circumstances resulting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, it is probably the best deal that can be realistically hoped for, given that Iran clearly has the upper hand. Unfortunately, that has not stopped some Washington politicians, including many prominent Democrats, from attempting to undermine it.
Iran has suffered enormously in terms of damage to its military and civilian infrastructure and the killing of many in its clerical, political, and military leadership, among many other thousands of deaths. In response, the regime has demonstrated an effective new form of asymmetrical warfare, in which relatively cheap drones can continue to inflict an enormous amount of damage on US assets in the region, as well as on the military and civilian infrastructure of US allies, even when more than 90 percent of such projectiles are successfully intercepted via more costly technologies.
The United States cannot win this war against Iran.
The deal outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding is decidedly of greater benefit to Iran than the terms agreed upon in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an agreement primarily negotiated by the Obama Administration and signed by six other nations with the support of the United Nations and the European Union. That deal was unilaterally broken off by President Donald Trump during his first term.
Trump’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Iran calls for Iran’s enriched uranium to be blended down inside the country rather than removed to another location. In addition, as much as $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets will be released, although Trump has repeatedly criticized the JCPOA for unfreezing billions in Iranian assets. And, unlike the JCPOA, this deal lifts sanctions prior to Iran’s implementing the nuclear provisions.
The Trump Administration emphasizes that its agreement forces Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commits Iran to not developing a nuclear weapon. However, both of these were already the case prior to Trump’s launch of the war four months ago on February 28.
For Republicans who attacked President Barack Obama for the JCPOA to now defend Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding is beyond hypocrisy. But many Congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, referred to the agreement as “the art of surrender.” Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, deemed it “despicable.” Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, said it was a deal in which Iran gets all the benefits. Former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice dubbed it a “jaw-dropping, horrific surrender.” Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, said it was “a thorough capitulation.” Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, similarly claimed it was “basically a surrender document.” And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, also called the agreement as an “unconditional surrender” by the United States, insisting it would be “dead on arrival in the Senate”—even though, since it is not a formal treaty, it does not require ratification or any other action on Capitol Hill.
Under international law, countries that engage in aggressive war are generally held liable for the damages inflicted upon the country they attack. The costs to Iranian society of the US-Israeli bombing has been estimated to be nearly $300 billion. The Memorandum of Understanding does not call for reparations, but it does make reference to a reconstruction fund in that amount, apparently led by Arab Gulf states; payments will likely be in the form of loans with a decent return on investment for those Gulf states. It is not US tax dollars that are being spent. It is not money that Trump is giving to Iran.
This has not stopped some Democratic leaders in Congress from claiming this is somehow a taxpayer-funded cash grant to the Iranian regime. Schumer insists the agreement would force the United States to “send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are severe here at home.” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, falsely claimed these funds could be used to “end homelessness, fund cancer research for forty years, and give every child free pre-K for over seven years. Instead, Trump is sending it to Iran.” Blumenthal even claimed that Iran would be able to spend the money on supporting Hezbollah and other extremist Iranian allies, and rebuild its nuclear program. However, the investments would more likely actually be directed towards specific civilian infrastructure development projects under the supervision of the donor countries and private investors.
Misrepresenting arms control agreements is a time-honored tactic used by militarists. During the Cold War, these agreements frequently prompted rightwing claims that arms control locked in Soviet nuclear superiority. Trump himself insisted that the JCPOA, rather than make it physically impossible for Iran to develop a weapon, would have enabled them to do the opposite and destroy Israel and attack the United States.
By falsely claiming that the United States would pay Iran $300 billion, Schumer (who also opposed the JCPOA) and other Democrats are essentially trying to mobilize popular opposition to the ending of the conflict.
The big question: What is the alternative?
A return to a war on Iran that brings retaliatory attacks on a half-dozen Middle Eastern nations? The continued devastating Israeli bombardment of Lebanon? The indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its disastrous global economic impact, particularly on families worldwide living under the poverty line?
Some Democrats recognize this reality. “There is no good way out of a bad war,” noted Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “When you're in a hole, stop digging.” Similarly, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, observed, “It’s a disaster, but it’s probably a necessary disaster.”
But the Democratic politicians who are joining rightwing Republicans in claims of “surrender” are assisting in the creation of a climate that might indeed lead the hawkish Trump Administration to break off the current agreement and return to war.
In many respects, this is nothing new. Democrats played an important role in working to undermine Obama’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran, in discouraging President Joe Biden from returning to the deal, and in promoting a war in Iran that Trump finally brought to fruition in recent months.
Those of us interested in peace and security, however, should not encourage these actions. It is easy to criticize the agreement as a means of underscoring the tragedy of this reckless and illegal war, and to further discredit Trump as we approach the midterm elections. We must resist the understandable temptation to forward the memes, cartoons, and late-night jokes critical of the deal on our personal listservs and social media.
Doing so simply reinforces the efforts by Republican hawks, rightwing Zionists, and others who seek perpetual war. The unfortunate reality is that the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding is probably the best hope at this point to end—or at least suspend—this tragic conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Right to Record Act, People Could Sue Federal Agents for First Amendment Violations
“Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others,” said one of the bill's sponsors.
Jun 08, 2026
A pair of congressional Democrats on Monday introduced legislation that would protect the constitutional right to legally record federal agents and open the door to civil compensation for people whose rights have been violated.
Congressman Maxwell Frost of Florida and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Right to Record Act, which according to Frost's office, "establishes the right to sue individual law enforcement agents if they violate First Amendment rights, including the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest."
“The First Amendment defends the right to assemble, protest, and record government officials in public," Frost said in a statement.
No federal agent is above the Constitution. My bill, the Right to Record Act, with @blumenthal.senate.gov strengthens your First Amendment right to record, observe, and peacefully protest — and gives you the power to sue federal agents who violate those rights.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (@frost.house.gov) June 8, 2026 at 2:24 PM
"That right has never been more important. In cases like the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, officials and their allies tried to paint the victims as threats despite evidence showing otherwise,” the congressman said, referring to two people shot and killed during the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Operation Metro Surge anti-immigrant blitz in Minneapolis.
"Without firsthand recordings, those false narratives might have become the official story, which is why the Right to Record Act is so important," Frost added. "It would protect the public’s ability to expose the truth without fear, giving individuals a legal path forward if an officer does violate their constitutional rights.”
In the same statement, Blumenthal said that “over the last year, I’ve investigated dozens of cases of Americans brutalized by agents of their own government, and across the board, video footage corroborated their testimony—showing the world what they experienced and making sure that justice was served."
"Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others," the senator continued.
Martinez, a US citizen, was shot five times by a US Customs and Border Protection agent last October in Chicago while going to donate clothing to her church. Officer body camera footage showed that DHS officials—who labeled Martinez a "domestic terrorist"—lied about events leading up to the shooting.
Retes, who is also a US citizen, is an Iraq War veteran who was violently arrested last July during an immigration raid on his job site and subsequently jailed for three days.
"The right to bear witness has never been more important," Blumenthal said in his statement Monday. "I’m proud to work with Congressman Frost on bicameral legislation that will strengthen the right to record, observe, and peacefully protest—creating real enforcement tools for the protections of the First Amendment that lay the foundation for our democracy.”
Recording federal law enforcement agents in public is protected First Amendment activity, as long as the recorder is not interfering with the officers' duties. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld this right.
"The right to observe and record law enforcement is fundamental to our democracy," Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the ACLU—which has endorsed the Right to Record Act—asserted Monday.
"We can't hold our government accountable if we can't see for ourselves what they're doing in our communities," she argued. "Observing and filming allows people to create an independent record, share information with their communities, and demand better from our government."
"Protesting for what we believe in is a core American value, and observing and filming government activity can drive the protest movements that spark change," Leventoff added. "All of these rights are squarely protected by the First Amendment, and we're hopeful that Congress will codify them into law by enacting the Right to Record Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fuck This Coin': Trump Crypto Gala Admission Price Plummets as Meme Coin Value Down Over 90%
The president and his family made billions off Trump meme coins while investors got fleeced.
Apr 24, 2026
The price to attend Saturday's second "VIP reception" for investors in President Donald Trump's meme coin has plunged nearly as much as the cryptocurrency itself, leaving investors bamboozled and bankrupt.
Meme coins are highly volatile cryptocurrencies inspired by internet memes, jokes, or cultural trends. While many thousands of meme coins are introduced daily, the overwhelming majority of them fail after a short period as influencer-driven hype and investor "FOMO"—fear of missing out—subside.
The president's $TRUMP meme coin debuted just before his January 2025 return to the White House. Its price soared by more than 50% after its website announced last April that the coin’s top 220 investors would be invited to a private gala dinner with the president. The watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) revealed that invitees included dozens of investors in crypto assets named after white supremacist and outright Nazi themes.
However, even then, $TRUMP was already down significantly from its high of over $75 just after its launch. On Friday, it was trading at less than $3, and the top-tier entry price to Saturday's gala at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida is indicative of that precipitous plunge.
Tomorrow, President Trump will host an event for 297 $TRUMP memecoin holders at Mar-a-Lago. It’s the second time in less than a year that the president has offered special access to people who can afford to buy enough of his memecoin—and it’s somehow even worse than the first.🧵
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) April 24, 2026 at 7:36 AM
According to the Financial Times, the 29 premier access attendees of Saturday's event held a median investment of $539,000. That's nearly 84% less than the $3.28 million median investment they had prior to last year's gala. Furthermore, the newspaper reported that many premier access winners have apparently liquidated their $TRUMP holdings since securing their VIP spots.
“Nobody likes it,” Morten Christensen, a crypto investor who went to last year's gala and plans on attending the Mar-a-Lago dinner, told Politico Thursday. “People are losing on the coin, and they are vocal. They are the people on Twitter like, ‘Fuck this coin’ or, ‘It’s a scam.’ And they’re right, basically.”
That's not stopping the gala organizers from touting what they're calling “THE MOST EXCLUSIVE CRYPTO & BUSINESS CONFERENCE IN THE WORLD!”
As Politico reported Thursday:
It is open to the top 297 $TRUMP investors, who will get the chance to hear from an eclectic lineup of speakers that includes several crypto executives, boxing legend Mike Tyson, motivational coach Tony Robbins, and Trump, who will speak during the event’s luncheon, according to promotional materials. He is expected to be in Washington later in the day for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
While $TRUMP investors may be losing big, Trump and his family have made billions of dollars in crypto profits, while the Trump family and the coin's creators raked in $320 million in trading fees, even as the coin's value tanked.
A small group of elite investors has likewise been spared severe losses, including insiders who bought up $MELANIA, First Lady Melania Trump's meme coin, prior to its launch, a practice known as "sniping" that netted them around $100 million, according to the Financial Times.
$MELANIA launched on the eve of Trump's second inauguration and soared to an all-time high of $13.73 on Inauguration Day. It's now trading at $0.12, a 99% dive. Investors subsequently sued $MELANIA's creators, alleging that it's part of a fraudulent "pump-and-dump" scheme in which they manipulated the launch of $MELANIA and other coins in order to enrich themselves while later investors got wiped out.
That's not the only lawsuit targeting the president's family over alleged crypto fraud. Billionaire investor Justin Sun is suing World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm co-founded by Trump and his sons, accusing the company of illegally blocking Sun from selling up to $1 billion worth of digital tokens. Sun said last year that he's the world's largest single holder of the president's meme coin.
Last year, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), as well as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), launched investigations into $TRUMP events.
“He’s normalized his corruption,” Blumenthal said of Trump during a Thursday interview, adding that the Mar-a-Lago gala is “simply another way to generate more money for himself, profiting directly from his office."
Trump—who once said he's "not a fan" of cryptocurrencies, "whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air"—has pushed crypto since returning to office, most notably in a January 2025 executive order calling for the establishment of a working group on digital assets to explore the possibility of creating a “national digit asset stockpile," a top crypto industry wish list item.
“It is literally cashing in on the presidency—creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president’s family in connection with his office,” Campaign Legal Center executive director Adav Noti said last year.
Experts have warned prospective investors about the dangers associated with $TRUMP.
“Two exclusive promotional events offering access to the president created temporary price increases but did not reverse the long-term downward trend,” Marquette University finance professor emeritus David Krause wrote last month.
“With approximately 80% of the token supply controlled by Trump-affiliated entities and over $324 million in trading fees accruing to insiders, the token raises significant questions about the alignment of promotional activities with retail investor protection,” Krause added. “As political meme coins continue to emerge, the $TRUMP token may serve as a cautionary case for the risks of speculative assets tied to political figures.”
Looking forward to Saturday's Mar-a-Lago gathering—which Trump may not even attend, according to small print on the event's website—CREW said Wednesday that "like the first event, Trump will almost certainly host holders of alt-right and racist coins, foreign attendees—including those with potential ties to foreign governments—and people seeking favors."
"This weekend will provide a prime example of the level of corruption and profiteering that no other president would have even dreamt of engaging in, but Trump is comfortable doing so openly," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What Are They Hiding?' Trump's Secret Contract for White House Ballroom Revealed
"At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Apr 22, 2026
While the financing of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom has been shrouded in mystery for months, government watchdog Public Citizen has obtained important new information about the project's funding.
Public Citizen on Tuesday unveiled a copy of the funding agreement the Trump administration has used for the ballroom project after months of legal wrangling that forced the group to file a lawsuit to compel enforcement of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it made last year.
As summarized by The Washington Post, the ballroom contract's provisions "allow wealthy donors with business before the federal government to contribute anonymously to a sitting president’s pet project, while exempting the White House from key conflict of interest safeguards and limiting scrutiny by Congress and the public."
While dozens of big-name corporate donors—including Amazon, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Google, Altria, and Union Pacific Railroad—have been public about their donations to the project, the fact that some donors can choose to remain anonymous is raising serious concerns among ethics experts.
Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor at the University of Baltimore with a long history of scrutinizing government contracts, told the Post that the contract's anonymity provisions could give the Trump administration an escape hatch from future congressional scrutiny.
"If Congress knocks on the door," Tiefer said, "the White House is going to slam it shut and say, ‘You’re not allowed to know these donors.'"
This means that there is no way to know whether these donors have business before the government, and no way to know if they expect to get something in return for their donations.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Post that the contract's very narrow scope of reviewing for conflicts of interest among donors renders it "nothing more than a sham."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the key takeaway from the newly unearthed documents is that "anonymous donations are the heart of this agreement."
"The questions this raises are, of the hundreds of millions being funneled in secret, who are these anonymous donors, and what are they hiding?" Golinger added. "The American people deserve answers, and we’ll keep fighting until they get them."
Wendy Liu, Public Citizen attorney and lead counsel on the lawsuit to obtain the contract, said the administration's initial refusal to comply with a FOIA request was "flatly unlawful," and "the American people are entitled to transparency over this multimillion-dollar project, and this win gets us a bit closer to knowing the truth."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) blasted the Trump administration's efforts to hide the contract in a statement given to the Post.
“At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” Blumenthal said. “His administration has kept the contract under wraps, the identities of big dollar donors secret, and the American people in the dark about what big corporations have to gain by funding this boondoggle.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Secret Briefing, Dem Senators Warn Trump 'On a Path' to Ground Invasion of Iran
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation."
Mar 10, 2026
Democratic US senators left a classified Tuesday briefing with senior defense and intelligence officials with serious concerns that President Donald Trump will order a ground invasion of Iran in what would be a perilous escalation of his illegal and unprovoked war of choice.
White House officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—and Pentagon brass have held a series of closed-door meetings with congressional lawmakers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran late last month.
While Democratic lawmakers have said that the classified status of these briefings prevents them from disclosing key information about the administration's war plans, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's meeting with a warning to reporters that “we seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives" outlined during the briefing.
Blumenthal after getting briefed on Iran: "We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here. There's also the specter of active Russian aid to Iran putting in danger American lives ... China also may be assisting Iran"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) March 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
“I am left with more questions than answers, especially about the cost of the war,” Blumenthal said. “My questions have been unanswered, and I will demand answers because the American people deserve to know."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation," he added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said after attending the briefing, "Here we are well into the second week, and it is still the case that the Trump administration cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, the goals we're trying to accomplish, and the methods for doing that."
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that what she heard during the briefing "is not just concerning, it is disturbing."
"I'm not sure what the endgame is or what their plans are," Rosen said of the administration, adding that Trump has "not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after, let's put it that way. That's as much as I can say."
Democratic lawmakers voiced similar concerns over a possible ground war following a March 3 classified briefing.
Trump and senior administration officials have not ruled out a ground invasion of Iran.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground,” Trump told the New York Post last week. “Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Sunday interview on Fox News that Trump has not ruled out either a ground invasion or a draft, although many experts say the latter option is highly unlikely.
Here's the Karoline Leavitt interview people are talking about. Maria Bartiromo asks if Trump might send ground troops into Iran, because "mothers are worried" about a draft. Leavitt replies that ground troops aren't in the current plan, but Trump won't rule them out. No mention of the draft.
[image or embed]
— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) March 8, 2026 at 4:09 PM
Trump has also given mixed signals about the planned duration of the war, declaring Monday that the campaign is "very complete, pretty much" before stating that US forces “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
The president and his senior Cabinet officials have also waffled when attempting to explain the war's objectives, alternately suggesting that the goal of the campaign is and is not regime change, and shifting the narrative from eliminating Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal.
Tuesday's briefing came on a day that Hegseth said would be the "most intense day of strikes inside Iran" during the 10-day war.
This, after a wave of US and Israeli airstrikes across Iran left at least scores dead on Monday, including 40 people massacred while sheltering in apartment blocks in eastern Tehran.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed by US and Israeli bombing in Iran and Israeli strikes on Lebanon, where more than 700,000 people have been forcibly displaced amid relentless airstrikes.
In what's being called "one of the deadliest school massacres in modern history," around 175 people, mostly schoolchildren, were killed on February 28 by what US intelligence said is a likely Tomahawk missile strike in Minab. Fragments from the missile marked with Pentagon contract information, the names of US weapons companies, and a "Made in USA" stamp provided the latest evidence that the attack was carried out by the US—although Trump has blamed the strike on Iran.
The Pentagon said that seven US troops have been killed and 140 others wounded by Iranian counterstrikes, which have also targeted Gulf monarchies allied with the United States, killing at least 15 people.
Noting that Trump—"who campaigned as the 'peace president'—led the United States into war with Iran with no clear objectives and no authorization from Congress," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday demanding that administration leaders "appear before Congress and under oath in public hearings to provide answers" about the war.
The senators wrote that Trump's "ever-shifting goals and explanations suggest there is no clear plan."
"Further, this raises the risk of mission creep which, based on history, would likely lead to more US casualties and escalating costs for taxpayers," the lawmakers added. "The American people—including our men and women in uniform—deserve clear answers about the war and accountability from your administration."
The Senate and House of Representatives—both controlled by Republicans—have voted down proposed resolutions meant to prevent Trump from waging war without congressional authorization, as required by the War Powers Act.
A Quinnipiac University poll published Monday revealed that 74% of respondents—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans—oppose a US ground invasion of Iran. A slim majority of respondents are against the overall war in Iran, which 55% of those surveyed said did not pose any "imminent threat" to the United States prior to the US-Israeli attack.
The survey also found that 62% of respondents "think the Trump administration has not provided a clear explanation of the reasons behind the United States' military action against Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Classified Iran Briefing, Dems More Convinced Trump Wants Ground Invasion and Forever War
"I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Mar 04, 2026
Senate Democrats said after receiving a classified briefing from the Trump administration on Tuesday that they're increasingly concerned about the US-Israeli war on Iran dragging on "forever"—and involving American troops in a ground invasion.
"I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters, criticizing the Trump administration for not providing the American public with information that was given to senators behind closed doors.
Blumenthal's warning came a day after President Donald Trump publicly declined to rule out a ground invasion of Iran, saying he doesn't "have the yips with respect to boots on the ground."
"Every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it," Trump told the New York Post. The Trump administration's letter formally notifying Congress of the initial attacks on Iran—sent days after the war began—said "no United States ground forces were used in these strikes."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's briefing—which included Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and other top officials—"more convinced" that the war on Iran "is going to be open-ended and forever."
"This feels like a multitrillion-dollar open-ended conflict with a very confusing and constantly shifting set of goals," said Murphy. "They told us in that room that there are going to be more Americans that are going to die."
"We shouldn't be voting to proceed to other pieces of legislation until we get a debate on this deeply unpopular, immoral, and illegal war with Iran," Murphy added.
Here's what I believe: no more business as usual in the Senate. We shouldn't be voting to proceed to normal legislation until Republicans schedule a debate and a vote and on a declaration of war against Iran. Let's see if Trump has the votes to authorize war. I bet he doesn't. pic.twitter.com/KIrkMD54yQ
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) March 4, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) addressed her concerns to the American public, saying in a video posted to social media that "it is so much worse than you thought."
"You are right to be worried," said Warren. "The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn't given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either."
I just left a classified briefing with the Trump Administration about the war in Iran.
I was worried before, but I’m more worried now. pic.twitter.com/HoSWLVWrR8
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 3, 2026
The briefing came after the Pentagon announced it would be sending additional troops to the Middle East as the American death toll rose to six—and the Iranian death toll neared 800 and counting.
The Trump administration, which has neither sought nor received congressional authorization for military action in Iran, has repeatedly declined to provide a clear timeline or objective for the attacks and offered muddled justifications for why they were purportedly necessary.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters after Tuesday's briefings that the administration aims to "systematically" dismantle Iran's ballistic missile program, "destroy their ability to sponsor terrorism," and "destroy their Navy"—goals that go well beyond protecting the United States from a supposedly imminent threat.
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled Senate plans to begin voting on a war powers resolution aimed at forcing the president to end military operations in Iran.
"Every senator will have to go on the record to declare whether it is in our best interest to send our sons and daughters into conflict against Iran," said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the measure's lead sponsor. "I pray that my colleagues will vote to end this dangerous and unnecessary war that has already resulted in the loss of six servicemembers and injured others. We owe it to those in uniform, their families, and all Americans to not make the same mistakes that we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fourth Amendment Literally Exists to Prevent This': Memo Claims ICE Can Forcibly Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, demanding congressional hearings.
Jan 21, 2026
"The United States government is looking for ways around that pesky Fourth Amendment," an investigative journalist said of Wednesday reporting by the Associated Press on an internal US Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo claiming that ICE agents can forcibly enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ICE's May 12 memo, part of a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, says that "although the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."
The January 7 disclosure was sent to the US Senate by the group Whistleblower Aid, which is "keeping the whistleblowers' identities anonymous even from oversight investigators," according to the document. It notes that despite being addressed to "All ICE Personnel," the seemingly unconstitutional memo "has not been formally distributed to all personnel."
Instead, it "has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the memo and return it to the supervisor," the disclosure details. "Newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on" an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.
Yeah, why could anyone think that ICE fits the description of the Gestapo?apnews.com/article/ice-...
[image or embed]
— Dan Sohege (@danielsohege.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 4:48 PM
Asked about the May 12 memo, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the AP that everyone DHS serves with an administrative warrant has already had "full due process and a final order of removal," and the US Supreme Court and Congress have "recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement."
However, as Whistleblower Aid senior vice president and special counsel David Kligerman stressed in a Wednesday statement, "no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant."
"This administration's secretive policy advocates conduct that the Supreme Court has described as 'the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed'—that is the warrantless physical entry of a home," he noted. "This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent."
"If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?" he asked. "Perhaps they've hidden it precisely because it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Policies which impact fundamental constitutional rights, particularly one which the Supreme Court has called the greatest of equals among the Bill of Rights, should be discussed openly with the American people. It cannot be undone by hidden policy memos."
They just make up bullshit, bad-faith legal theories, do what they want until a court stops them, then lather, rinse, and repeat. In the meantime, they get to terrorize people. And nothing will happen to any of those responsible.Our courts are not equipped to deal with this.
[image or embed]
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Other lawyers, journalists, and critics responded similarly to the AP's reporting on social media. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic declared that "the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this."
Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in litigation related to national security, federal employment, and security clearance law, said, "Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?"
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!"
"This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda," he continued, highlighting a footnote that suggests "they won't even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!"
"In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we've been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door," he said. "Turns out they were secretly told they don't need one!"
While Reichlin-Melnick shared photos of a scene in which armed immigration agents used a battering ram to enter a Minneapolis home and arrest a Liberian man, federal agents also recently broke down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul, Minnesota, and arrested ChongLy "Scott" Thao, a US citizen who was later freed.
The AP reporting and responses to the leaked memo came as the Trump administration on Wednesday surged immigration agents to Maine for what it dubbed "Operation Catch of the Day," mirroring the federal deployment to not only Minnesota—where ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in her vehicle earlier this month—but also Illinois and California.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into reports of unconstitutional detentions of US citizens by immigration agents in October and on Wednesday demanded answers about the new whistleblower disclosure.
Blumenthal sent lists of questions and requests for records to Lyons and US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as well as Benjamin C. Huffman, director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The senator also wrote to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urging them to call the ICE and DHS leaders to testify before their panels.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," Blumenthal said in a statement. "It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time."
"In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light," he continued. "Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first."
"My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real," the senator added. "They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Report Shares Stories of US Citizens Assaulted, Unconstitutionally Detained by DHS
"Masked ICE and CPB agents chillingly seizing Americans isn't the nation we know and cherish," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. "Totalitarian tactics have no place in our democracy."
Dec 09, 2025
Despite US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's claim that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of the Trump administration's violent and widely condemned immigration operations, ProPublica has tracked more than 170 cases, and a Senate report released Tuesday shares the stories of 22 of them.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released Unchecked Authority: Examining the Trump Administration's Extrajudicial Immigration Detentions of US Citizens ahead of a public forum with House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and five Americans unconstitutionally detained by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents.
"While the second Trump administration has been marked by brazen lawlessness in many areas, the daily drumbeat of shocking stories detailing the behavior of federal immigration officials has been particularly chilling," the report states.
"The subcommittee's findings add to a growing body of evidence that the Trump administration is seeking to build a nationwide paramilitary force with vast resources that lawlessly detains citizens based on its own whims—an effort which has a number of unfortunate and obvious historical parallels," the publication continues.
"They couldn't even agree who had authority over me because none of them did. I was never arrested. Never charged. Never given an explanation. Never given an apology."
The report also notes that the testimonies included "represent only a subset of the likely hundreds of American citizens who have been unlawfully detained," and "also do not account for the many green-card holders, visa recipients, and others who have been captured and whose immigration status may cause them to be subject to even more severe treatment and harsher conditions than the appalling experiences of the Americans documented herein."
On June 8, when Cary Lopez Alvarado—a 23-year-old born and raised in Los Angeles County, California—was taking lunch to her husband, who was providing maintenance services on private property, masked immigration agents targeted him and her cousin in a work truck. Lopez Alvarado, who was pregnant, approached and took a video of the scene, where agents tried to pry open the vehicle's doors and threatened to break a window.
According to the report:
Cary tried again to tell the agents to stop, but, before she could finish her sentence, the officer put his hands on her and shoved her into the side of the truck. Two other agents immediately rushed over to further detain her. Cary knelt and clutched her mid-section to shield her baby from the assault. "I wasn't resisting at all," Cary recalled. "I can't fight back; I'm pregnant." The officers yanked her up and placed handcuffs around her wrists, all the while shoving her stomach against the truck. Her cousin attempted to intervene; "Be careful. Don't you see she’s pregnant?" he pleaded. At this point, Cary became dizzy from the altercation. When she regained awareness, she saw three agents on top of her cousin and several more in the process of throwing her husband on the ground. Then, the agents began kicking the back of the unoccupied work truck. A viral photo shows Cary, handcuffed and heavily pregnant, being led by a masked agent into a car.
The document also details the experience of Dayanne Figueroa, a first-generation Mexican American and working mom to a 6-year-old in Chicago, Illinois. When she was driving down a residential street to work on the morning of October 10, an unmarked, silver Dodge Durango SUV with blacked-out windows rammed into the side of her car. She reached for her phone to call local police, "but within seconds, two masked men in camouflage leapt out of the Durango and ran over to Dayanne's black Mercedes-Benz; one raised a gun in Dayanne's direction, and the other had an assault rifle strapped around his shoulder," the report says.
"Moments later, a third armed and masked agent appeared. Two of the men ripped open Dayanne's car door and grabbed her," the report continues, noting that bystanders recorded videos. "Two agents forcibly dragged her out of her car by her legs, ripping both shoes off, slamming her to the concrete, and digging their knees into her body to restrain her, directly over the site of her recent surgery. The agents flipped over Dayanne—who stands at 4 feet 11 inches and weighs 120 pounds—and put her in handcuffs, cinching them so tight that Dayanne has since suffered nerve damage to her wrists. Three agents carried Dayanne to an unmarked, red SUV and threw her inside, while a fourth agent reached into her car and grabbed her laptop, purse, and cellphone."
They initially took her to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, where federal agents have violently responded to protesters and held immigrants in "horrific and inhumane conditions." She was then brought to a Federal Bureau of Investigation facility in another Chicago suburb, Lombard, where she started urinating blood. That afternoon, she was eventually released to paramedics. Figueroa recalled that "they couldn't even agree who had authority over me because none of them did. I was never arrested. Never charged. Never given an explanation. Never given an apology."
UPDATE: Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chair Sen. Blumenthal releases "Unchecked Authority" report with firsthand accounts from 22 US citizens "who were physically assaulted, pepper sprayed, denied medical treatment, and detained—sometimes for days—by federal immigration agents"
[image or embed]
— Tyler McBrien (@tylermcbrien.com) December 9, 2025 at 8:57 AM
While Figueroa's young child was not part of her encounter with federal agents, the report stresses that when children are involved in ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents' interactions, "they are treated with reckless disregard."
For example, a now-6-year-old Massachusetts girl on the autism spectrum, called M. in the report, "was separated from her parents by ICE agents in an apparent attempt to lure her parents to leave private property so they could be apprehended" in September.
"M. was violently ill upon being returned to her family and had to be treated in the emergency room, miss school for a week, and has continued to struggle with nightmares," according to the document. It also notes that "her father has a pending asylum case and her mother has a pending request to obtain a legal status."
In a Tuesday statement announcing the report, Blumenthal said that "Americans should have a hard time recognizing our great nation in these stomach-turning, heartbreaking stories of brutal assaults on our fellow citizens."
"Masked ICE and CPB agents chillingly seizing Americans isn't the nation we know and cherish," he added. "Totalitarian tactics have no place in our democracy. I hope that elevating stories of abhorrent abuse will reinforce our resolve to preserve democratic rights."
Tuesday's public forum at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC featured testimony from American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Figueroa, and four other citizens who have encountered immigration agents, including Wilmer Chavarria, a school superintendent from Vermont, and Javier Ramirez, a Californian who was assaulted by DHS and denied adequate treatment for diabetes while being held for four days.
The other two participants are also from California: George Retes is a US Army veteran who missed his daughter's birthday after being violently arrested and detained during a raid at his job site, and Andrea Velez was falsely charged with assaulting an officer during an immigration raid she encountered on her way to work in Los Angeles.
"I served my country. I wore the uniform," Retes has warned. "If it can happen to me, it can happen to any one of us."
This article was updated after the hearing to include a video of the event and links to the witnesses' written testimonies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Levels of Corruption Feared as Trump Family Adds Gambling Business Atop of Crypto Grift
"The White House is a full-time, 24/7 corruption machine," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Oct 29, 2025
President Donald Trump's family has long generated controversy and criticism for running a cryptocurrency business during his second term in office, and now they're adding an online betting business to their portfolio.
The Financial Times on Tuesday reported that the president's Truth Social platform is getting into the prediction market business to allow bettors to place wagers on the outcomes of elections, sports games, and other events.
The new "Truth Predict" betting market platform will be a partnership between the Trump Media and Technology Group and Crypto.com, a cryoptocurrency trading platform that in the past has donated millions to Trump causes.
According to the Financial Times, the Trump family in recent months has become more intertwined with the online betting industry, as Donald Trump Jr. has taken on "advisory roles at the two industry-leading prediction market companies, Kalshi and Polymarket."
Additionally, Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm has invested in Polymarket, which Wired reports has not operated in the US since 2022 when it reached an agreement with the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission to settle allegations that it operated an unregistered derivatives trading market.
Mike Masnick, a journalist at Techdirt, pointed out the glaring conflict of interest posed by the most powerful person in the world owning his own prediction market platform.
"So the company the president currently owns is teaming up with a cryptocurrency company to create a prediction market, which will take bets... on things the president himself has quite a lot of control over?" he wrote in a post on Bluesky. "Gosh, I'm sure nothing bad will happen."
The Trump family's entrance into the online betting market came on the same day that Reuters published an extensive report showing how the Trump family has used its cryptocurrency business to generate a massive increase in wealth in a matter of mere months.
According to Reuters' calculations, "the Trump Organization’s income soared 17-fold to $864 million from $51 million a year earlier," with more than 90% of this income coming from the Trump-backed cryptocurrency venture. Reuters also reported that the $800 million is just the actual income the Trump Organization has taken in so far, and that it has billions more in unrealized gains from the crypto venture.
Washington University law professor Kathleen Clark, who specializes in teaching government ethics, told Reuters it was obvious that investors in the Trump crypto venture were hoping to get some kind of favor from the government in exchange.
"These people are not pouring money into coffers of the Trump family business because of the brothers' acumen,” she said. “They are doing it because they want freedom from legal constraints and impunity that only the president can deliver."
Trump last week sparked corruption accusations when he pardoned cryptocurrency magnate Changpeng Zhao, whose company Binance has been a major booster to the Trump family's crypto business.
“Binance has been one of the main drivers of the growth of World Liberty’s dollar-pegged cryptocurrency, called USD1,”The Wall Street Journal reported at the time. “It delivered World Liberty’s first big break this spring when it accepted a $2 billion investment from an outside investor paid in USD1. Binance has also incentivized trading in USD1 across platforms it controls.”
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer (R-Tenn.), who for years investigated former President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for his foreign business dealings, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper if he would investigate the Trump family's crypto venture.
Comer indicated that he was fine with the Trump family's potentially corrupt money-making schemes because they were being done out in the open.
"We... are reading about this, we're trying to digest it," he said. "The difference between the way the Trump family's operating and the Biden family, is they're admitting they're doing this. The president campaigned as a business guy... as long as you disclose the income and disclose the sources, I think that's acceptable."
WATCH — @jaketapper: “The Trumps made $800 MILLION in crypto from foreign influence in half a year. Will you looking into that?”@RepJamesComer: “The difference is they’re open about (their corruption).” 🤔
TAPPER: *ZERO PUSHBACK* pic.twitter.com/QRMHPUZ0Iy
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 28, 2025
Critics of the president, however, said this hands-off approach to investigating the Trump family's business dealings was unacceptable.
Democratic operative David Axelrod wrote in a post on X that it is "kind of incredible that the House Oversight Committee is spending its time on Biden's auto pen but they won't touch how Trump has doubled his wealth in a year."
Axelrod also thought congressional investigators should be asking about "who's buying his meme coins," "the deals his kids are cutting all over the world," and "the gifted jet from Qatar."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) argued that no president in US history has engaged in this level of corruption.
"Trump and his family’s crypto ventures are selling out our national security through sweetheart deals with money launderers, fraudsters, and foreign governments," he wrote on X. "The scale of this corruption—reaping more than $800 million and pardons for business partners—is unprecedented."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) noted on Tuesday that Binance this week promoted sales of the Trump family's meme coin mere days after the president pardoned its founder.
"The White House is a full-time, 24/7 corruption machine," he said.
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