

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.
One group said the people of Detroit "will soon have a representative who prioritizes the people of the district over Israel’s genocide."
Michigan state Rep. Donavan McKinney has defeated incumbent Congressman Shri Thanedar in Tuesday's 13th Congressional District Democratic primary, delivering yet another rebuke to corporate-backed Democrats and their support for Israel as it continues its US-backed genocidal assault on Gaza.
The Associated Press called the race for McKinney (D-11) just before 10:00 am local time on Wednesday, with preliminary results showing the 34-year-old Detroit sonative received 51.9% of the vote, while Thanedar—whose close ties to corporate interests made him a frequent target of progressive criticism—received 48.1%, with 99% of all votes tallied.
McKinney—a 34-year-old organizer backed by social democrats including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—ran a campaign centered on working-class issues like affordable housing, healthcare, labor rights, and environmental justice.
He also sharply criticized US support for Israel's war in Gaza—which a United Nations Commission of Inquiry last year called a genocide—joining a growing number of progressive candidates calling for an end to the billions of dollars in annual armed aid the US provides Israel and a permanent ceasefire. His stance won him widespread support in a district with a significant and growing Arab American and Muslim population.
Congratulations to @donavanmckinney.bsky.social Mi-13 will soon have a representative who prioritizes the people of the district over Israel's genocide.Donavan is a real fighter who doesn't just talk about change, he delivers it!Let’s go!!!
[image or embed]
— PAL PAC (@votepalpac.bsky.social) August 5, 2026 at 7:08 AM
“Detroit, I am honored beyond measure to be your Democratic nominee to represent the Mighty 13th in Congress," McKinney said in a statement published by Michigan Advance. "I am so proud that our community is sending me to Congress to fight for a better future—because that means our movement has shown them a fighter is what they truly deserve in Washington."
“Today, we showed why being always with the people is more than a slogan—it’s a roadmap for the Democratic Party on how to move forward to defeat the fascism and divisiveness harming our country, and to deliver the leadership the Mighty 13th deserves," he added. "Taking back our seat and taking back our power has always been at the core of our movement, and I’m so excited for all that our community will accomplish together.”
Democratic Socialists of America congratulated McKinney—a DSA member—in a Bluesky post touting his progressive platform.
Congratulations to Donavan McKinney on winning his congressional primary, unseating a millionaire AIPAC stooge! Donavan is a former union member fighting to get money out of politics, a green new deal, and union jobs. @donavanmckinney.bsky.social @detroitdsa.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Democratic Socialists of America (@demsocialists.bsky.social) August 5, 2026 at 7:33 AM
Indivisible, which organizes against what it calls a "fascistic clown show of a regime"—the Trump administration—hailed McKinney's victory as "a huge win for working families."
"In addition to overcoming millions in outside spending, Donavan defeated a multimillionaire incumbent who enriched himself in office and voted to enrich [President Donald Trump]," the group added. "This is how we build a better Democratic Party!"
McKinney's victory came amid a wave of wins for progressives in Michigan and across the country.
Michigan voters also nominated progressive Abdul El-Sayed for the US Senate after he narrowly defeated Congresswoman Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) despite tens of millions of dollars in outside spending, much of it from pro-Israel groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its United Democracy Project.
Meanwhile, Sunrise Movement co-founder Will Lawrence won the Democratic nomination in Michigan's battleground 7th Congressional District, underscoring what supporters called the strength of climate-focused and working-class organizing.
Progressive candidates also notched victories in several Michigan state legislative contests backed by the DSA, Working Families Party, Our Revolution, and other left-leaning groups.
In metro Detroit, Chris Gilmer-Hill unseated incumbent state Rep. Helena Scott (D-8) after running on a platform centered on labor rights, housing affordability, and universal healthcare. In a closely watched state Senate primary, Abbas Alawieh—a co-founder of Michigan's Uncommitted movement, which emerged in protest of the Biden administration's support for Israel's annihilation of Gaza—handily won the Democratic nomination over state Rep. Erin Byrnes (D-15). Joanna Whaley, a former megachurch pastor, is set to become the first transgender member of the state Legislature after comfortably winning her race against opponents including former state Rep. Frank Liberati (D-13), who tried to disqualify Whaley because she did not run under her deadname.
Reacting to the wins, Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese said Wednesday that "Michigan voters rejected the idea that elections can simply be bought, and they rejected a politics that asks them to settle for the status quo."
Tuesday's victories in Michigan point to a Democratic electorate that is apparently becoming more willing to reject candidates aligned with corporate donors and AIPAC in favor of unapologetic working-class progressives. While establishment Democrats and outside groups continue to wield enormous financial power—and have scored victories of their own, including incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell's defeat of former Congresswoman Cori Bush in Missouri—Tuesday's wins added to mounting evidence that working-class, pro-Palestine candidates are reshaping the Democratic agenda from coast to coast, including in crucial battleground states.
"Ordinary people understand what's happening in this country. They know the economy is rigged against working families," Geevarghese said. "They know our campaign finance system allows billionaires and special interests to buy power. And they're tired of a political establishment that too often protects that broken system instead of confronting it."
Lawrence said his win showed that voters "are tired of Silicon Valley billionaires and DC insiders determining the future of our towns and our country."
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed was not the only Michigan progressive to take down a well-funded establishment opponent in a Democratic primary on Tuesday night.
In central Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, Democratic voters picked William Lawrence, a co-founder of the youth-led Sunrise Movement climate activist group, to represent them over two centrist candidates—retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam and former ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink—as the party seeks to flip one of the nation’s most vulnerable GOP-controlled seats in November.
Many of the same obstacles El-Sayed faced en route to his party's Senate nomination were also faced by Lawrence, who triumphed over a split opposition with nearly 44% of the vote on Tuesday.
He faced over $4.5 million in outside spending aimed at defeating him and boosting his opponents, according to Federal Election Commission filings, including over $1 million from a pass-through group for Democratic Majority for Israel.
While rejecting corporate PAC money, Lawrence championed Medicare for All, legislation to curb money in politics, and an end to arms sales to Israel.
But he also distinguished himself by harnessing voters’ growing fear and frustration with the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers, framing them as an imposition by unaccountable “tech billionaires” without regard for the public’s concerns about rising energy prices, diminishing water supplies, and pollution.
According to Politico’s E&E News, 12 data centers are already operating or have been proposed in Michigan’s 7th District alone. In contrast with his opponents, Lawrence took the clearest position on the issue, calling for a 12-month federal moratorium on new data-center construction and joining local opposition movements as proposed sites sprang up across his district.
“Tonight the people of Michigan’s 7th District sent a clear message: They are tired of Silicon Valley billionaires and DC insiders determining the future of our towns and our country,” Lawrence said in a statement following his victory. “They want an unbought representative who isn’t afraid to stand up to leaders of both parties and fight for working people.”
Lawrence will seek to knock off first-term Republican Rep. Tom Barrett in November's general election, whom the Cook Political Report describes as one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents as Democrats seek to flip the House.
While Democratic politicians have been much more vocal opponents of data centers, stopping the expansion of the facilities has proven to be a bipartisan issue among the electorate, including in Michigan.
In an April poll sponsored by the Detroit Regional Chamber, 55% of likely general election voters said they'd oppose a data center within 25 miles of their home, while just 33% said they'd be open to it. While nearly two-thirds of Democrats expressed opposition, so did more than half of Republicans.
It's likely that fierce opposition to data centers will remain central to Lawrence's broader message about fighting a cost-of-living crisis increasingly tied to an unpopular President Donald Trump.
“I think anyone who has concerns should come out and knock on doors,” Lawrence recently told The New York Times when asked about his ability to garner support from swing voters. “What they’ll hear is people are furious about data centers. Trump voters are getting off the Trump train because of Iran. Nobody could afford the essentials. They’re sick of corporate-funded politicians. That’s why we’ve built the momentum.”
Like El-Sayed’s battle with Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, Lawrence’s bid to oust Barrett, a MAGA hardliner with a deep stable of wealthy backers, will prove yet another front in the ongoing war between the insurgent left wing of the Democratic Party and its establishment over whether tacking to the center is necessary to win competitive races against Republicans.
Lawrence's win is also a victory for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who campaigned with him, El-Sayed, and the progressive Michigan state Rep. Donovan McKinney, who ousted incumbent US Rep. Shri Thanedar on Tuesday in the 13th Congressional district in Detroit.
Lawrence, whose campaign knocked on over 100,000 doors across the district during the primary, said his victory on Tuesday night showed that "only organized people can beat organized money."
"Brian Poindexter—a working-class ironworker and champion for all—is going to make sure Max Miller doesn't get another term in the halls of power," said one Democratic campaigner.
Democratic congressional candidate Brian Poindexter on Sunday joined a growing chorus of people across the political spectrum arguing that Republican Rep. Max Miller shouldn't remain a member of the US House of Representatives over domestic abuse allegations.
"No one credibly accused of holding a gun to his wife's head and breaking their 2-year-old daughter's collarbone belongs in the halls of power," said Poindexter, a union ironworker challenging the GOP incumbent in Ohio's 7th Congressional District, in a post on the platform X. "Help defeat Max Miller in November."
Poindexter's social media post, which links to his fundraising webpage, came after he told Ohio journalist Jessie Balmert on Saturday night, "These allegations are very serious, and I don't know if he should resign or not, but what I would say is that if these allegations are true, he should be in jail."
The Democrat's post also came as Miller wrapped up a nearly 20-minute livestream on X in which he makes clear that he is not dropping out of the race (the deadline for Republicans to replace him on the ballot is Wednesday). Miller also denied abusing his ex-wife Emily Moreno—the daughter of US Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio)—and their child.
Emily Moreno discovered bruises on their young daughter and took her to the emergency department. As Mother Jones' Abby Vesoulis reported last month, "Records of the investigation into potential child abuse show that Moreno told detectives that Miller had previously thrown hot water at her, shoved her, and held a gun to her head; therefore, she couldn't rule out that Miller caused their daughter’s fracture."
The Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services found that any potential child abuse was unsubstantiated—meaning there wasn't enough evidence to determine neglect or abuse—but Mother Jones reviewed legal filings in which "Moreno alleges that Miller was an absentee father and abusive husband whose history of violence and misconduct dates back more than a decade."
Responding to the Sunday morning video, Emily Moreno's spokesperson, Stefan Mychajliw, said that "it is shameful that Max Miller decided to go on a bizarre and lie-filled rant about his ex-wife to desperately try to save his political career. There is a documented trove of evidence that Miller has a history of violent and dangerous behavior and no amount of victim shaming will change that."
"It is despicable and abhorrent that Miller lied on an unhinged and humiliating video for their daughter to watch one day," the spokesperson continued. "No loving parent would have ever used their daughter as a PR pawn to save their own political career. Miller can lie and spin on X, but he cannot do so under oath in a court of law. We are confident that justice will prevail in court."
Her senator father also weighed in with a lengthy post on X, saying in part that "our priority has always been protecting our daughter and our granddaughter. Out of concern for the safety of my family, I hoped to keep this matter private, but Max Miller’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior has made that impossible... He should not serve in the House of Representatives. I believe Max Miller needs to seek professional help to end the clear pattern of abuse he has left in his wake."
Miller replied to the senator directly, writing: "If my daughter said the same thing to me, I personally wouldn't wait two years before holding him accountable. You know this isn't true, and the only reason you are speaking out now is to hide from your own media circus. This is all political."
As Mother Jones' Vesoulis noted Sunday:
Emily Moreno is not the only woman that Miller has been accused of perpetrating violence against. In 2021, Politico cited multiple witnesses in reporting that Miller had thrown a woman down the stairs after she rejected his advances. That woman recently told Mother Jones that the night in question remains “one of the more traumatic nights of my life.”
During the first Trump administration, Miller’s behavior toward women also came under scrutiny when former White House press Secretary Stephanie Grisham accused a fellow Trump staffer of assaulting her. Miller sued Grisham for defamation at the time, stating in his lawsuit that people knew she was referring to him. Miller denied hurting her, too, and the two reached a confidential settlement in the lawsuit. Grisham is now suing Miller for violating the terms of that settlement.
The video sparked a fresh wave of support for Poindexter. Cameron Kasky, a mass shooting survivor and gun violence prevention advocate who previously ran for Congress as a Democrat, said Sunday: "Miller stated: 'If I had assaulted her, would she have offered to cook me dinner six days later?' Ruin this man's life. And donate to his opponent."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of the polling firm Zenith Research, shared a link for donating to Poindexter alongside a short clip of Miller's video and said that "OH-07 is a flippable district," pointing to statewide election results going back to 2018.
Former Republican Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger replied to the video by blasting Miller as "an evil clown."
Calling the video "an absolutely appalling 'defense,'" US Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) said that "Max Miller is clearly unfit to hold power, including as a member of Congress."
Mari Manoogian, a former Democratic Michigan state legislator who now leads The Next 50, a group focused on electing younger Democrats, said that "Brian Poindexter—a working-class ironworker and champion for all—is going to make sure Max Miller doesn't get another term in the halls of power. Brian will be one hell of a congressman."
The US National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
"I think all kids and people should have medical care, I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars ever, I think all kids should be safe from violence, I think parents should be able to afford high-quality childcare if they want it."
The online child educator known as Ms. Rachel on Friday used her massive platform on Instagram to promote a dozen progressive Democrats running for seats in the US Senate and House of Representatives.
"These are the folks I believe care about all kids," wrote Rachel Accurso, whose wildly popular videos are designed to encourage language development. She asked her more than 5 million followers to share "which candidates you're voting for and why."
Accurso is supporting:
"I think politicians shouldn't attack each other and I don't think big groups should be able to use millions to attack candidates," Accurso asserted. From her home state of Maine to Michigan, super political action committees (PACs) and billionaires have spent big to boost "moderate" Democrats and Republicans amid a recent series of progressive primary victories.
"I'm for peace and kindness always but that doesn't mean not telling the truth and not standing up against injustice," said the educator, who has outraged right-wingers for speaking out against Israel's assault on Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip.
Accurso wrote that "I'm for the kids, I'm for the people—I think all kids and people should have medical care, I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars ever, I think all kids should be safe from violence, I think parents should be able to afford high-quality childcare if they want it/a parent should be able to stay home if they want to."
"I think everyone should be able to feed their kids and have high-quality schools without stress—I just love literally everyone," she added.
Balint is seeking a third term in the House. As the presumptive Democratic nominee, she is expected to face the Republican who wins the August 11 primary—likely Gerald Malloy, an Army veteran and defense contractor who previously ran for Senate, according to recent polling.
Bush—who was previously part of the progressive "Squad" in Congress—is hoping to reclaim the seat she lost last cycle to Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell, who was financially backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP). Their primary is August 4.
During this cycle, UDP is targeting El-Sayed, who is facing Congresswoman Haley Stevens in Michigan's August 4 Democratic primary. After Accurso contributed $3,000 to El-Sayed, Samantha Cantrell, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee told the New York Post last Saturday that "Abdul El-Sayed and Ms. Rachel are one and the same, forcing their socialist, they/them, anti-America agenda on our children, and parents should be worried when they head to the ballot box."
Flanagan, Minnesota's lieutenant governor, is running to replace Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, who decided not to seek reelection and is supporting the progressive. Polling conducted in the lead-up to the August 11 primary for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party shows Flanagan ahead of Congresswoman Angie Craig.
Maine Democrats last weekend nominated Jackson, a former state Senate president and logger, to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November. He replaced Graham Platner, who stepped aside after sexual assault allegations, which he denied. Platner's surge in popularity and series of scandals have drawn national attention to the race.
Keohokalole is running to oust incumbent Democratic Rep. Ed Case, who is currently leading in polls. According to Hawaii Public Radio, the state senator "decided to run for Congress after seeing how Case reacted to immigration agents holding teachers at gunpoint on Maui." Their primary is August 8.
Larkin is challenging another Democratic incumbent: Florida Congressman Jared Moskowitz. As the South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Friday, Larkin is "a democratic socialist inspired to get involved in politics by progressive icon US Sen. Bernie Sanders," a Vermont Independent. Their primary is August 18.
Lawrence, a co-founder of the youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, is hoping to beat former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam and Bridget Brink, who was previously US ambassador to Slovakia and Ukraine, in Michigan's primary on August 4.
Manley aims to represent a Florida district impacted by Republicans' mid-decade map-rigging at the request of President Donald Trump. Longtime Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has faced criticism for opting to run in this primary, scheduled for August 18.
Backed by progressives in Congress including Sanders and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), McKinney is running to unseat Democratic Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar, who has support from key party leaders in the House. The pair faces off in the August 4 primary.
Nixon "is running an unapologetically progressive campaign" against Alex Vindman, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel who was a key witness in Trump's first impeachment trial. The winner of the August 18 primary will face Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, who was appointed last year and is now seeking a full term.
Pearson, known nationally for being expelled from the Tennessee House of Representatives by Republicans over his protest for stricter gun laws, is running in the Memphis district targeted by GOP gerrymandering efforts. After the redistricting, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen opted to retire. The primary is August 6.
"Justin would be one of Congress' strongest voices protecting communities from Big Oil's pollution and climate disasters, while championing a just transition to affordable renewable energy."
A week away from Tennessee's Democratic primary, a coalition of national advocacy groups endorsed Justin Pearson, who is running to represent the state's 9th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives.
"Tennesseans deserve a champion who will stand up to corporate polluters and fight to ensure every community has a voice in shaping its future," said Brett Hartl, national political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund. "Justin Pearson understands that strong environmental protections depend on a healthy democracy where people, not powerful special interests, hold the power to protect their communities and natural heritage."
In addition to Hartl's group, Climate Hawks Vote, Food & Water Action, Friends of the Earth Action, GrayPAC, Jane Fonda Climate PAC, Oil Change Action, and US Mobilizing for Urgent Sustainable Transformation all endorsed Pearson, who currently represents the 86th District in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
Friends of the Earth Action president Erich Pica argued that "in Congress, Justin Pearson will serve Tennessee's 9th Congressional District with integrity, devotion, and hope, at a time when this country needs all three."
"He will fight to build the green economy, securing not only jobs but also a livable world for our children and grandchildren," Pica continued. "He will work to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, affordable housing, and clean air and clean water. He will lead on the climate crisis while others barely talk about it."
Pearson previously garnered national attention in April 2023 when he and state Rep. Justin Jones (D-52) were expelled from the GOP-controlled Tennessee House for protesting against gun violence; both ultimately won back their seats.
Since Pearson launched his campaign for Congress, demanding not only stricter gun laws but also a higher minimum wage, climate justice, affordable housing, Medicare for All, protections for immigrants, and an end to spending taxpayer dollars on war, he has picked up support from progressive organizations and leaders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Democratic Reps. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act in March, and earlier this month, Pearson joined AOC, Lee, and Pressley in southwest Memphis, near a data center owned by billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceXAI and used by Anthropic. As with other communities across the country that are home to such facilities, locals are concerned about air pollution and water use.
"Justin Pearson is the kind of leader that is sorely needed in Washington. He is a genuine champion for working families, for civil rights, and for environmental justice," Thomas Meyer, deputy political director at Food & Water Action, said Thursday. "Justin's principled stand against corporate polluters, from oil and gas pipelines to Elon Musk's data center, shows that he isn't afraid to take on difficult and important fights."
💥 We’re proud to endorse Justin Pearson, a data center fighter + voting rights champ running for Congress in TN. As an organizer + state rep, Justin fought to protect his community from polluting fossil fuel projects, including an X/AI data center. Now, he's ready to take that fight to Congress.
[image or embed]
— Oil Change Action (@oilchangeaction.org) July 30, 2026 at 11:00 AM
The fight for the seat Pearson hopes to hold has been a key factor in Democrats' efforts to reclaim control of Congress and Republicans' attempts to keep their slim majorities, including by redrawing political maps to favor the GOP, at the command of President Donald Trump.
After the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority issued an April ruling that further gutted the Voting Rights Act, Tennessee Republicans "rushed to be the first to shamelessly capitalize on it," targeting the state's only majority-Black district, where Pearson is running. Despite a swiftly filed legal challenge, a three-judge panel recently allowed the rigged map to stand.
Climate Hawks Vote political director RL Miller declared Thursday that "the way we fight back against Republican gerrymandering of states like Tennessee is by electing voting rights champions."
"The way we fight back against polluters is by electing environmental justice champions," Miller said. "Justin Pearson stands for everything that matters in American politics right now, and Climate Hawks Vote is thrilled to endorse him."
In addition to highlighting his fight against the recent map rigging, Allie Rosenbluth, campaign manager at Oil Change Action, stressed that Pearson does not accept fossil fuel money or contributions from corporate political action committees.
"We are proud to endorse Justin Pearson, who has spent his career fighting for racial, economic, and environmental justice," she said. "He doesn't back down in the face of entrenched interests' efforts to suppress working people's political power, like Republicans' racist redrawing of his district. If elected, Justin would be one of Congress' strongest voices protecting communities from Big Oil’s pollution and climate disasters, while championing a just transition to affordable renewable energy."
The House voted to halt unauthorized hostilities; the Senate blocked a final vote, leaving troops and civilians inside a war lawmakers refuse to own.
On July 23, the House of Representatives voted 214-208 to direct President Donald Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them. Hours later, the Senate rejected a motion to bring a separate war powers resolution out of committee, 47-49.
The Senate did not authorize the war. It did not even vote on the resolution itself. It blocked the measure before senators had to answer the central question: Should the United States continue fighting a war Congress has never approved?
The war continued anyway.
That is the dangerous precedent now taking shape in Washington. The president can begin or expand military operations, and Congress is left trying to stop them after the bombs have fallen and retaliation has begun. If opponents cannot clear committees, procedural votes, narrow majorities, and a likely presidential veto, inertia does the work of authorization. No lawmaker has to cast a clear vote for the war, but troops and civilians must still live with the consequences.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Trump has since expanded direct US involvement without obtaining a congressional mandate. By July 22, the war had killed 18 US service members and injured hundreds more. The Pentagon put its cost at $37.5 billion, a figure that includes some anticipated expenses through September 30. A July Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 79% of Americans expected the conflict to drag on, while only 37% approved of the US strikes.
Iranian civilians have paid a far heavier price. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that by April 10, 1,701 civilians, including at least 254 children, had been killed since the war began. Iran’s Health Ministry said another 50 civilians were killed and 500 wounded during the renewed US strikes in July. An anti-war politics worthy of the name cannot ask Americans to care about their own soldiers while treating Iranian deaths as background noise.
For working-class families, the war is not an argument about executive theory. It arrives as an extended deployment, a flag-draped coffin, a long recovery from injury, higher fuel prices, and another demand that public money be redirected toward a conflict with no visible conclusion. The officials who refuse to define the mission do not bear those costs equally.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who introduced the House resolution, said the war has “no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal.” The administration has moved among overlapping justifications: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, retaliating for attacks, protecting US forces, and keeping commercial shipping open, as well as degrading Tehran’s regional military capabilities. Each objective can be used to justify another strike. None provides a measurable definition of victory or a credible route out.
Republican leaders argue that limiting Trump during active hostilities would weaken the United States and endanger deployed forces. The White House says the president needs flexibility to repel Iranian attacks and protect American personnel. It also argues that the House’s concurrent resolution lacks the force of law and warns that the measure could create “operational paralysis.”
A president must be able to protect troops from an immediate attack. That narrow defensive authority cannot become a blank check to define and prolong an entire war without Congress. Otherwise, each deployment creates the danger later invoked to expand it: US forces enter the conflict, Iran attacks them, and protecting them becomes the rationale for another round of strikes.
Sending troops into an open-ended conflict without a public mandate is not support. It is political abandonment.
Veterans have made that point more clearly than many lawmakers. After an earlier House war powers vote, Common Defense, a grassroots organization of veterans and military families, said that “veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans” and called congressional action essential to giving the public a voice. Supporting troops requires more than praising their sacrifice after they die. It requires telling them what the mission is, what limits govern it, what success looks like, and when it ends.
The House vote showed that opposition to unauthorized war is not entirely partisan. All 210 Democrats present joined Republicans Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Tom Barrett (Mich.). In the Senate, Republican Susan Collins (Maine) supported bringing the resolution forward, while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted with Republicans to block it.
But the larger story is institutional, not personal. Senators avoided a direct vote on whether to authorize or end the war. Procedural language cannot erase political responsibility. A senator who prevents Congress from considering restraint helps preserve the conditions under which the war continues.
The House resolution alone cannot stop the fighting. That makes Congress’ power over military funding the next real test. The White House has requested an $87.6 billion supplemental package, saying most of it would address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury. The request includes $67.1 billion for the Pentagon, with $21 billion of that amount designated for munitions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that about one-third of the entire package is driven by Iran war costs; the rest funds other administration priorities.
Lawmakers cannot credibly call a war unauthorized while financing its continuation without meaningful limits. Any new funding should prohibit offensive operations against Iran after a brief period for immediate force protection unless Congress passes a specific authorization. That authorization should define the enemy, mission, geographic scope, reporting requirements, and expiration date. Renewal should require another affirmative vote.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
Congressional authorization is not bureaucratic interference. It is the democratic process through which elected officials must tell the public why troops are being sent into danger. Trump owns the decision to wage and escalate this war. But lawmakers who block restraint, keep the money flowing, and refuse to demand a defined mission are not neutral observers. They are helping sustain a war they have never been willing to own.
Congress has not authorized Trump’s Iran war. Until lawmakers either define and limit the mission or stop paying for it, troops and civilians will remain trapped between a president claiming the power to continue and a legislature unwilling to take responsibility for ending it.
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands."
A Democratic lawmaker in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday introduced legislation that would cut off funding for President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
In announcing the "No Funds for Illegal Wars Act," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said that it was time for the legislature to take the next steps to end the unlawful conflict Trump started in February without congressional authorization.
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands. We have voted to end this illegal war not once, but twice—and we need to enforce the law."
Larson emphasized that his bill would not merely end funding for the illegal Iran war, which has cost tens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The legislation, the Connecticut Democrat said, would also “block Donald Trump or any future president from waging war without explicit approval from Congress, as both the Constitution and War Powers Act require.”
Larson last week joined Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) in filing a resolution that would require House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to “initiate or intervene in litigation” to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in both chambers of Congress last month and compel the president to end the conflict.
Trump predicted that the Iran war would only last a few weeks when it began, but the conflict is now in its sixth month and the president last week said he was considering authorizing what he described as a "massive attack" on Iran that he vowed would be "bigger than ever before."
There are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state of Israel.
When House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent out a recent “dear colleague” letter, its second sentence cited “the position articulated by… pro-peace organizations like J Street.” The congressman and J Street were opposing an amendment to block $3.3 billion in military shipments and other aid to Israel.
Jeffries (NY) contended that the measure was “overly broad.” On the same day, using the same phrase “overly broad,” J Street issued a statement declaring that “we support Leader Jeffries’ decision to oppose the amendment.”
Both Jeffries and J Street respectfully noted that many members of Congress had understandable reasons to back the measure. The next day, July 15, a record 103 Democrats voted in favor of blocking weaponry to Israel.
While attempting to prevent a high number of yes votes, Jeffries and J Street had emphasized mutual agreement to validate a position that amounted to support for arming genocide.
After the House vote, J Street said that “we welcome House Democratic leadership taking a stronger stance on using US leverage to pressure the Israeli government to change course.” But there are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state of Israel.
Last month, a United Nations commission concluded that genocide is continuing, as Israeli forces intentionally target children in Gaza. “A significant body of research by legal and rights experts has concluded that Israel is intent on destroying Palestinians, including analyses by UN investigators, rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and genocide scholars worldwide,” The Guardian reported this summer.
Jeffries, a seven-term representative from New York City, has received upwards of $1.7 million from pro-Israel donors. He is now third from the top of such recipients among the thousands of House members since 1990.
During the 34 months since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, J Street has evolved from unequivocally supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza to fervently criticizing them and calling for an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. Yet the organization has never responded adequately in ways commensurate with the actual horrific events.
Early last year, while writing an article for The Nation, I researched J Street’s public statements ever since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza. I found that “none of J Street’s 132 news releases between October 7 [2023] and the start of the [temporary] ceasefire in late January 2025 called for an end to shipments of the US bombs and weapons that were killing those civilians while enforcing Israel’s policy of using starvation as a weapon of war.”
Throughout the 16-month period, as I pointed out: “J Street news releases echoed pronouncements coming from the White House and State Department, becoming grim parodies of wishful thinking and empty warnings. The headlines of J Street releases were largely contoured around hollow claims from the Biden administration that it was diligently striving to end the death and agony in Gaza.”
Only gradually has J Street expressed support for—minimally—curbing US military aid to Israel. Meanwhile, as has been the case since J Street’s founding nearly 20 years ago, many members of Congress have hidden behind J Street to legitimize their support for Israel, while often repeating the expedient “two-state solution” fantasy.
Describing itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy,” J Street has long been widely seen as a liberal Jewish-led alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s right-wing politics. But J Street’s record shows that it has gone out of its way to trumpet denial.
On January 16, 2024, the organization put out a news release with this headline: “J Street Rejects Allegation at International Court of Justice of Genocide in War Against Hamas in Gaza.” Four months later, another J Street news release was equally emphatic, making clear that “J Street continues to reject the allegation of genocide in this case.”
In December 2024, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports unequivocally stating that Israel was engaged in genocide.
At last, in August 2025, J Street’s president and driving force since its founding, Jeremy Ben-Ami, finally acknowledged the reality of Israeli genocide. “Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide,” he wrote in a blog post. “I have, however, been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention.”
J Street’s leader wrote those words a year ago. Yet he and his organization just teamed up with Hakeem Jeffries in support of continuing massive arms shipments to the genocidal Israeli government.
And so continues the convenient evasion with the absurd motto “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.”
"If Republicans actually wanted to stop congressional stock trading, they’d pass our bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday held a series of key votes, including one in which over a dozen Democrats helped Republicans pass a purported congressional stock trading ban, even though the GOP tacked on a voter suppression provision demanded by President Donald Trump.
The chamber passed the Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) in a 232-198 vote. The Democrats who voted in favor are Reps. Kathy Castor (Fla.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Susie Lee (Nev.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), Chris Pappas (NH), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Darren Soto (Fla.), and Derek Tran (Calif.).
Taking aim at Trump on Wednesday, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlanger-Dove (D-Calif.) said that "the Stock Trader in Chief made 21,000 stock trades in his first year back in office. I 100% support a stock trading ban for Members of Congress AND the president and VP. But the bill Republicans brought to the floor was only about appeasing Trump."
"It caters to Trump's election conspiracy theories by enacting haphazard voter ID restrictions, and it conveniently excludes him and JD from the ban," she added, referring to Vice President JD Vance. "I voted no."
Many other House Democrats joined voting rights advocates in opposing the bill in the lead-up to Wednesday's vote, with Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) denouncing it as "a Trojan horse—using the premise of congressional ethics reform to advance a broader effort to restrict access to the ballot box."
In a letter to Congress earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warned that "the Voter ID Act—which mostly mirrors a section of the deeply unpopular SAVE Act—aims to impose onerous new requirements on voting. It would demand Americans provide ID to cast a ballot but only accept an unreasonably narrow list of acceptable types of documentation. It excludes widely held and reliable forms of ID that young people and voters of color disproportionally rely on, while failing to account for the diversity of tribal identification practices."
As for the stock portion of the bill, CLC wrote, it "would not actually ban lawmakers from trading stocks or stop members from unduly profiting from their official positions," and "contains exceptions that regrettably swallow the few new rules it does try to enact."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday renewed her call for passing the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act.
In addition to HR 7008, the House on Wednesday passed an annual military spending package and a budget reconciliation framework that includes $10 billion for election-related grants.
By adding SAVE America Act provisions to unrelated measures, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is trying "to placate Mr. Trump and far-right House Republicans who are furious that the voting restriction bill has run aground in the Senate," The New York Times noted. "The moves are unlikely to budge Senate Republicans; they consider the bill dead, given that it cannot draw the 60 votes needed to move forward in that chamber."
As for the chamber's Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and his party's Election Protection Task Force on Wednesday brought together various experts, including Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, lawyer Marc Elias, Vanita Gupta of New York University School of Law, and Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward.
"We all know that Donald Trump wants to steal America's elections, plain and simple. And Democrats won't let it happen," Schumer said. "We are looking at every very way to prevent him from stealing the elections. He's desperate. He's made life harder, more difficult for Americans. He wants to steal the election because he knows he can't win the election. Our job is to stop it. And so, we are doing many things. This month we're talking about Trump's corruption."
"But one of the things we are doing is a tabletop exercise where some of the experts on election reform will challenge us with certain scenarios that Trump might use. We're looking at things he would do to undo elections before Election Day, on Election Day, and after Election Day," he explained. "And we had one tabletop exercise three, four weeks ago. And it greatly strengthened our knowledge and ability to anticipate what he might do and how to thwart him. That's what we're doing here today. And whatever he does, we will be ready to respond."
"Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week," said US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and voting rights advocates on Tuesday sounded the alarm about Republicans in the House of Representatives trying to push through voter suppression legislation under cover of passing a ban on congressional stock trading.
According to a Tuesday report from Roll Call, House GOP leaders recently added "unrelated language" to what was a bipartisan bill banning congressional stock trading that would "require voters to produce photo ID at the polls, a signature issue for President Donald Trump."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) hammered Republicans for what she said were underhanded tactics that are undermining what had been a serious bipartisan effort to halt congressional stock trading.
"Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a social media post. "They say we are voting on an 'insider trading' bill, but have snuck in massive SAVE Act-style voter suppression measures to it. This is a GOP effort to sabotage national mail-in voting, disguised as a trading ban. I’m voting NO."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that the caucus was opposing the GOP's legislation not just for its attacks on voting rights, but because it only forces congresspeople to stop making new stock trades, while not requiring them to divest of their current holdings.
"House Republicans are not serious about enacting a meaningful congressional stock trading ban," said Clarke. "The combined Stop Insider Trading Act and Voter ID Act... would allow members of Congress to continue owning, selling, and, in some cases, purchasing individual stocks while simultaneously imposing stricter voter ID requirements that would make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote."
"This bill is a Trojan horse," Clarke added, "using the premise of congressional ethics reform to advance a broader effort to restrict access to the ballot box."
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) on Monday sent lawmakers a letter opposing the GOP-backed legislation, which it said would "impose onerous new requirements on voting."
Among other things, the group said the proposed legislation would "demand Americans provide ID to cast a ballot but only accept an unreasonably narrow list of acceptable types of documentation," excluding the kind of "widely held and reliable forms of ID that young people and voters of color disproportionally rely on."
The CLC also said the bill doesn't provide "sufficient safeguards" for voters wrongly deemed ineligible to prove they are legally allowed to participate in US elections.
A page on congressional contact portal 5 Calls recommended users oppose the GOP-backed bill, which it described as "partisan legislation" that "uses the guise of much-needed ethics reform to sneak through an unpopular and unrelated attack on voting rights."