

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright," the Maryland Democrat said.
Though acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has said President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “weaponization” slush fund is now “dead,” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin on Thursday unveiled draft legislation that would eliminate what he describes as a “super pardon” buried in the Department of Justice settlement reached last month.
While Blanche—whom Trump said he plans to nominate for a full term as attorney general—has backed off the fund that would allow the DOJ to disburse taxpayer money to Trump allies and January 6 insurrectionists amid bipartisan backlash, a news release from Raskin’s (D-Md.) office on Thursday said the acting AG has done nothing to rescind “the mother of all sweetheart deals he tucked into his unprecedented settlement with Trump.”
The settlement, created in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for improperly leaking his tax returns, gives Trump, his entire family, and all their business ventures total and permanent immunity for “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” not only before the IRS, which Trump sued in the case that led to the settlement, but also before “other agencies or departments.”
The Maryland Democrat also said that despite retreating on the "weaponization" fund, the DOJ is still using its Judgment Fund to improperly reward the president's allies.
According to the Washington Post, as of April, the DOJ had already paid $8.5 million to prominent Trump allies who claimed to have been wrongly targeted by the Biden administration, even though no court formally determined that they had been.
“If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright,” Raskin said. “But no one should be fooled by Trump and Blanche’s tactical pause: Nothing has been dismantled, and nothing has been renounced. Trump’s scheme to raid the Judgment Fund, bankroll political allies using taxpayer cash, and score a sweeping Super Pardon is alive and well and remains a clear and present threat to our constitutional order.”
Raskin, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a new legislative package on Thursday, aiming to destroy the remaining vestiges of the DOJ deal and ensure that future presidents can never use federal settlements to reward themselves.
The Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments (BLANCHE) Act, bars sitting presidents from entering settlements for money damages with the federal government and requires independent judicial oversight of any such agreements, including ones that grant the president "super pardons" like the one granted to Trump by the DOJ.
“My legislative package would end the slush fund, outlaw collusive settlements, and make clear that no president can use taxpayer dollars to cut partisan loyalty reward checks,” Raskin said.
He also introduced the Constitutional Rights Defense Act, which would allow individuals to file suits against the federal government when their rights are violated by agents of the state.
In contrast with the January 6 Capitol riot participants who have been claiming compensation under the fund, Raskin said his bill "ensures that all people who have actually had their constitutional rights violated by the government will have access to justice."
Raskin has previously introduced legislation that would block the use of federal funds to finance the Trump IRS settlement and prohibit payouts to January 6 Capitol riot participants and other Trump allies, including family members.
"Congress must act with urgency to shut down this presidential plunder once and for all,” Raskin said.
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," said one foreign policy critic.
Rep. Delia Ramirez called on her fellow Democrats to "stop making excuses and act" to stop a war in Lebanon, as many refuse to go on the record about whether they'll support a war powers resolution that would halt US military participation in Israel's escalating occupation of the country.
Axios reported on Wednesday that some Democrats are "fuming" about having to take a vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), which would require the US to end unauthorized military cooperation with Israel in Lebanon within seven days of being passed. The resolution would need Republican support to pass the GOP-controlled House.
Israel's assault on Lebanon, which began in March, has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,500 people. With forced evacuation orders that have led to the expulsion of more than 1.2 million people from their homes, Israel has systematically razed dozens of villages across the south of the country where leaders have expanded their military "combat zone" further north to the Zahrani River.
"Every day that we do not act to stop the assault on Lebanon, we enable another genocide," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said. "The War Powers Resolution is targeted to end Netanyahu and Trump's war crimes."
Anti-war activists supporting Tlaib’s measure—which has 17 Democratic cosponsors—have described it as a way to force Democratic legislators skittish about their party’s growing anger toward Israel to go on the record about where they stand on the country's actions in Lebanon.
One unnamed House Democrat told Axios that "people are not happy" that Tlaib "is making people take this vote."
Citing multiple unnamed sources, the outlet reported that the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees—Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—are also "on the fence." Another unnamed House Democrat was quoted as saying that their hesitation will likely make others in the party reluctant to jump on board.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said of the two-page resolution that he hadn't "taken a look at it yet."
Axios quotes other anonymous Democrats—one of whom said they are “probably a ‘no’” and another who angrily remarked that the resolution “does nothing to advance a solution.”
The outlet described Democrats’ hesitation as stemming in part from the fact that “there is no indication the US is planning imminent, large-scale ground operations in Lebanon.”
But anti-war groups demanding passage of the resolution have made the point that even without boots on the ground, the US is still intimately involved in Israel's decision-making, with President Donald Trump reportedly giving the "green light" on major operations: These have included Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in March as well as its assault on Beirut in April which killed over 250 people and tanked US negotiations with Iran.
A policy roundup published Tuesday by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, urging the House to pass the resolution, said "Israel is using US-provided weapons and bulldozers to flatten the southern part of the country and to potentially permanently displace 600,000 people. Israel has already used bulldozers, likely provided by the US, to destroy homes and infrastructure in the area."
Aside from continuing to provide direct military aid to Israel, the US is also closely involved in intelligence sharing and coordination that has led to Israeli strikes on specific targets. In a letter sent to Adm. Bradley Cooper last month, some senators raised the possibility that, without approval from Congress, these actions could violate the War Powers Act.
In an email sent to Democratic staffers Tuesday, obtained by Common Dreams, the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy said that Trump's reported intervention to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off strikes on Beirut earlier this week was the latest example demonstrating "how Trump is engaged in an unprecedented, high-level command and coordination over the Israeli offensive in Lebanon" in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The email also pointed out that "a ceasefire in Lebanon is key to peace with Iran" because "Iranian officials have made clear that a full ceasefire in Lebanon is a necessary precondition for diplomacy with the US to advance."
Note the sources who oppose it
"numerous lawmakers and aides"
"one senior House Democrat"
"Dem leadership"
"second senior House Democrat"
"another House Democrat"
"a fourth House Democrat"
ALL anonymous.
Everyone FOR it put their name on their quotes. What does this tell you? https://t.co/XIIHkvF2hF
— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) June 3, 2026
Polling from the Arab American Institute in April found that by about a two-to-one margin, American voters believe the US should do more to pressure Israel to stop bombing and leave southern Lebanon. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said the US should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire, while just 17% said no and 18% were unsure.
Adam Johnson, a journalist and prominent US foreign policy critic, noted on social media that while Ramirez and Tlaib went on the record to voice their support for the measure, the Democrats in opposition were doing so under a shroud of anonymity.
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," he said.
"If...leadership has objections to the Lebanon war powers resolution, then they can openly come out against it," he added. "Instead they're laundering their 'reservations' through anonymous leaks. Curious!"
While the Axios report portrays Tlaib as the cause of a rift in the Democratic Party, Johnson emphasized that "Tlaib's bill is the overwhelming majority position among Dems by almost 4-to-1," adding that "the 'division' is between Dem voters and pro-Israel party leaders."
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that the Democrats "hedging" on the war powers vote were still taking a side.
"You'd be going on record enabling an unauthorized war that has killed over 3,433 Lebanese people," she said. "US weapons. US intelligence. Zero congressional approval."