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
u.s. congress
US Progressives Say Stop Supporting 'Rogue Genocidal Regime' After Israel's Unprovoked Attack on Iran
"Trump must act immediately to suspend all military support to Israel and stop allowing U.S. arms to fuel war crimes, mass civilian death, and regional collapse," said one critic.
Jun 13, 2025
Progressive U.S. lawmakers and human rights defenders demanded an end to unconditional American armed and diplomatic support for Israel after it launched a series of attacks on Iran early Friday, reportedly killing senior military officials and civilians including nuclear scientists, women, and children in a dramatic escalation that Iranian leaders vowed to avenge.
Israeli forces carried out at least five waves of airstrikes targeting not only Iran's nuclear facilities but also its military leadership and capabilities, Al Jazeerareported. In addition to airstrikes, Israeli and international media reported that operatives from Mossad, Israel's foreign spy agency, also conducted assassination and sabotage attacks in Iran.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander-in-Chief Major Gen. Hossein Salami and Iranian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major Gen. Mohammad Bagheri were assassinated, as were numerous Iranian nuclear scientists.
IDF attacks targeted cities including the capital Tehran, Natanz, Isfahan, Arak, Tabriz, and Kermanshah. Iranian television reports showed bombed-out apartment towers and said that an unknown number of civilians including women and children were killed in the strikes.
The attack on Natanz—home to Iran's primary nuclear enrichment facility—sparked fears of radiological contamination.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the attack—dubbed Operation Rising Lion—a "preemptive strike," a dubious form of warfare previously waged by forces including imperial Japan during the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the George W. Bush administration in Iraq.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said the attacks were meant to "neutralize an immediate and existential threat to our people," an apparent reference to Iran's nuclear program. Successive U.S. administrations including President Donald Trump's have concluded for decades that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.
During his first term, Trump unilaterally abrogated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal.
Last year, Israel and Iran carried out limited tit-for-tat attacks following the former's assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, who led the Lebanon-based resistance group Hezbollah, and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
This time, Iranian leaders vowed "severe punishment," with fears that the U.S. could be targeted due to its staunch support for Israel as it wages what the international community increasingly views as a genocidal war on Gaza. While U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that his country was not involved in the attacks, Israeli officials insisted there was close coordination with the Trump administration.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said Friday that "in the early hours of today, the Zionist regime extended its filthy and bloodstained hand to commit a crime in our beloved country, exposing its vile nature more than ever by targeting residential areas."
"With this crime, the Zionist regime has prepared a bitter and painful fate for itself—and it will undoubtedly face it," Khamenei added.
As the world braced for Iran's response to the attacks, U.S. progressives called for a diplomatic solution and an end to American support for Israel.
"The Israeli government bombing Iran is a dangerous escalation that could lead to regional war," Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said on social media.
Tlaib asserted that Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and is facing a domestic criminal corruption trial, "will do anything to maintain his grip on power."
"We cannot let him drag our country into a war with Iran," she added. "Our government must stop funding and supporting this rogue genocidal regime."
Referring to negotiations on a new Iran nuclear deal, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said: "Just as talks with Iran were set to resume, Netanyahu launches a strike and declares a state of emergency. He is provoking a war Americans don't want."
"We should not allow ourselves to be dragged into yet another conflict, against our will, by a foreign leader pursuing his own agenda of death and destruction," Omar added.
The U.S.-based peace group CodePink—some of whose members held an emergency protest outside the White House in Washington, D.C.—said that it "strongly condemn[s] Israel's unprovoked and reckless attack on Iran, which risks igniting a catastrophic regional war."
"This dangerous escalation threatens millions of lives across the entire Middle East," the group added. "The U.S. must not continue to support and enable this illegal act of aggression."
CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin said: "It's horrific that Israel is bombing yet another country. And Trump calls himself a peace president? He knew this was coming and stood by. This is entirely out of step with the will of the American people."
"The whole world is desperate for peace in the Middle East, and instead, Israel decides to move the region closer to World War III," Benjamin added.
Noting that nuclear talks with Iran were set to resume this weekend, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said that "this is an attack on peace and diplomacy."
"Israeli political officials have demonstrated that U.S. diplomacy and a peaceful resolution with Iran is what they consider to be the true threats," NIAC asserted.
"This much is clear: This is a war of choice, and an illegal and unprovoked attack," NIAC added. "Trump must weigh in to stop this conflict before it spirals out of control, and to preserve the chance of maintaining diplomatic offramps."
Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man, Israel-Palestine director at the advocacy group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), contended that "Israel deciding to launch a war against Iran at the very same time it faces unprecedented international isolation and pressure over its genocide in Gaza is a nightmarish outcome of impunity."
DAWN executive director Sarah Leah Whitson said that "Israel has committed an unlawful, unprovoked attack on Iran to undermine the growing global efforts to sanction it for its illegal occupation and to disrupt Trump's efforts to independently pursue America’s interests via diplomacy."
Nihad Awad, national executive director at the Council on American Islamic Relations, issued the following statement:
We condemn Israel's offensive strike on Iran and the broader pattern of aggression it represents. Netanyahu is using American weapons and taxpayer dollars to launch illegal and destabilizing wars across the region. President Trump must act immediately to suspend all military support to Israel and stop allowing U.S. arms to fuel war crimes, mass civilian death, and regional collapse. Secretary Rubio's statement confirms what we already knew—Israel is acting recklessly, and the U.S. is letting it happen.
CodePink noted that "in the past month and a half alone, Israel has bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran."
"There is no other choice," the group added, "ARMS EMBARGO NOW!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Work Requirements for Medicaid Imply a Federal Duty To Hire
If Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Jun 12, 2025
Republicans in Congress are planning to slash funding for Medicaid in order to help pay for major tax reductions for wealthy Americans and corporations. But they don't want to cut Medicaid openly, because it will gravely injure many people who voted for them.
One way to cut Medicaid expenditures without overtly reducing benefits is to increase required paperwork. Additional bureaucratic hassle will discourage people from applying for what they are eligible for. The "big beautiful bill" currently discussed in Congress incorporates this strategy.
The major provision aimed at saving money requires Medicaid recipients to work at least 80 hours a month.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
The work requirement requires frequent verification that a recipient is employed—more hassle. It will deny coverage to individuals who—for one reason or another—can't find work.
Given likely job loss due to artificial intelligence, mass corporate layoffs, and huge reductions in government payrolls, the number of people without insurance because they can't find work will likely be large.
This policy will be rather hard on people who through no fault of their own are unable to find work. And inability to get medical treatment may leave some people in such poor health that it makes it even harder to find and hold a job.
The work requirement, though, appears to be popular when people are polled. But many of the polled people may underestimate the danger that they themselves will lose their jobs, their job-related insurance, and their eligibility for Medicaid.
Fortunately, the bad consequences of the requirement could be completely eliminated by one simple additional government policy: that it will hire anybody who is otherwise unable to find work.
There is, of course, no end to the useful work that people employed by the government could do: elderly people who need help in their daily lives, children who could use tutoring, parks that need to be cleaned up, hiking trails that need maintenance, etc.
But guaranteeing jobs would cost the government (which is to say taxpayers) money, which would conflict with the desire to save money prompting Congress to restrict Medicaid eligibility in the first place.
And a guaranteed jobs policy, morally necessary in order to make federal medical policy less unjust, would also make public policy even more complicated than it already is.
A better solution to this problem would be to completely decouple medical insurance from employment. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee medical insurance for everyone, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or old.
Instead, we have a tremendously complicated system with different government programs for the old, for children, for Native Americans, for veterans, for the poor. As people's situations change, they can "churn" from one program to another, all too often falling into the gaps between programs, which leave them totally uncovered.
We'd all be better off, and would probably save money, if Congress wiped out all of today's complicated government insurance programs—including Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid—replacing them with a single program insuring everybody no matter their age or work status.
Unfortunately, American conservatives have been trained to reject a single-payer program like Medicare For All as "socialistic," without inquiring into the benefits such a program would produce. And enacting a major program like this would require bipartisan support.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
Given this unpleasant fact, if Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Since it is unlikely that Congress will do this, the best outcome we can realistically hope for is that the work requirement for Medicaid recipients will be stripped out of the bill in the Senate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress, Don’t Repeat the Mistakes of the 2017 Tax Cuts
The new House bill would disproportionately benefit the well-off—and harm the financial well-being of millions of working Americans, including Black women like me.
Jun 08, 2025
In early 2018, I remember sitting at my kitchen table, trying to make sense of how the 2017 Trump tax law was supposed to help families like mine.
I’d read headlines promising “middle class tax relief.” But when tax season rolled around, there was little relief to be found—especially for me, a Black woman navigating caretaking for elderly parents and a demanding career. My refund was smaller, my deductions had vanished, and the math simply didn’t add up.
It was clear then, as it is now: the Trump tax cuts weren’t designed with people like me in mind.
Let’s be clear: The 2017 Trump tax cuts failed Black women—and millions of others—the first time around. They widened inequality, rewarded the wealthy, and ignored the economic realities of everyday families.
Now as more GOP tax cuts for the rich move through Congress, history is poised to repeat itself. The bill would disproportionately benefit the well-off—and harm the financial well-being of millions of working Americans, including Black women like me.
Instead, lawmakers should embrace the “Black Women Best” framework and take a different path. Coined by Janelle Jones, the principle is that when Black women are thriving, then the economy is truly working for everyone.
For example, when the 2017 tax cuts were passed, most of the benefits went to wealthy, white households. Had lawmakers considered the financial realities of Black women, who are typically underpaid, they could have made a package better designed for all those who need the most help—not just Black women, but everyone struggling to make ends meet.
Refundable tax credits like the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are one of the most direct ways the government supports working families. When structured fairly, they give families a much-needed financial boost.
The 2017 tax law increased the CTC from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. But many families receive far less because it restricted the refundable part of the credit for those with modest earnings. That left out many of the lowest-income families—including 45% of Black children (double the share of their white peers)—whose parents didn’t earn enough to qualify.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which temporarily restructured the CTC to make it larger and fully refundable. For the first time, all the families at the bottom received the full credit. The results were stunning: Child poverty hit record lows.
But that progress was short-lived. The expanded credit has not been renewed, and child poverty shot right back up.
This time around, the House temporarily boosted the CTC to $2,500. But limits on the refundable portion would be continued, meaning 17 million of the lowest-income children in America will still be left out.
Using the “Black Women Best” framework would make those expanded benefits permanent—not just because it’s the right thing to do for Black families, but because it lifts up the entire economy.
But instead, in this way and others, the bill favors the already wealthy.
Another significant example is the bill’s deduction for income people receive from “pass-through” businesses. Rather than pay a corporate income tax, these business owners pay taxes on their profits through their personal taxes. The 2017 tax law created a 20% deduction for this kind of income—and now lawmakers want to permanently increase it to 23%.
Increasing this deduction means Congress is giving handouts to those already holding the keys to wealth. A Treasury report showed a jarring 90% of the people who received this benefit were white. Only 5% of the benefits went to Hispanic taxpayers—and just 2% to Black taxpayers.
Let’s be clear: The 2017 Trump tax cuts failed Black women—and millions of others—the first time around. They widened inequality, rewarded the wealthy, and ignored the economic realities of everyday families. Repeating those mistakes in 2025 would be more than negligent—it would be a deliberate choice to uphold a broken system.
But there’s another way. When Black women thrive, everyone wins. It’s time for our tax code to reflect that truth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular