

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.
"They are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we’ll be printing," said Sen. Ed Markey.
After Democrats took back both chambers of the US Congress Tuesday, Rep. Robert Garcia, the incoming Democratic chair of the House Oversight Committee, had two words for President Donald Trump and his family: “Lawyer up.”
With solid majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats will have much greater power to conduct hearings, demand documents, and summon witnesses to testify under oath beginning in January.
“They are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we’ll be printing,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Democrats are expected to aggressively probe the depths of what Garcia (D-Calif.) called “an unprecedented amount of corruption” by the “Trump crime family.”
Trump has added billions of dollars to his personal wealth during his second term. Garcia said Democrats plan to examine Trump’s cryptocurrency empire and whether foreign governments and businesses have used it to purchase political favors.
He said Democrats intend to investigate Donald Trump Jr.’s personal investments and his involvement with companies that have received government contracts. The business dealings of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has been accused of using foreign diplomacy to line his own pockets, will also be investigated.
Responding to voter concerns about the cost of living, which fueled Democratic wins across the map on Tuesday, Garcia said “any CEO that has been ripping off the American public” should prepare to face scrutiny, particularly those whose companies have engaged in price gouging, abused government contracts, or financially benefited from their relationships with Trump.
Punchbowl News noted several powerful executives and officials who could be under the gun:
Expect the tech executives closest to [Trump], including SpaceX’s Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, to be early targets for House Oversight, [the House Energy and Commerce Committee], and [the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee]. Democrats will also want to grill OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei about their [artificial intelligence] products.
“Anyone who has been in bed with the Trumps” is going to have “no choice but to respond to our questions,” Garcia said of businesses alleged to have gotten favorable treatment due to their relationship with the president’s family.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) will also face scrutiny over its handling of the investigation into the late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. A report last month by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said the DOJ “appears to be covering up” evidence of Trump’s relationship with the billionaire predator and laid out accounts involving 11 women who connect Trump to Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking operation—five of them have accused the president of sexual assault in Epstein’s presence.
Garcia said Tuesday that in contrast to the closed-door hearings conducted under Republican control, he plans to hold “real public hearings” that “center the survivors” of Epstein’s abuse.
Abuses by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will also be examined.
At least 62 people have died in ICE custody since Trump returned to office, while federal immigration agents have opened fire on people in at least 32 incidents, killing nine and injuring 15, including US citizens and immigrants who appeared to pose no threat. Agents have also been documented committing widespread civil rights violations, using excessive force, and engaging in racial profiling.
“Oversight Democrats have documented hundreds of incidents of abuse and misconduct by DHS immigration enforcement agents, and every single one of them deserves a full investigation,” Garcia said in April in a statement with Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).

Garcia has stressed that "it can't just be the agents" who face accountability, but anyone “involved in the abuses of ICE."
“The agents are taking direction in some cases from others, and policy is being written to encourage that level of activity and that level of elimination of due process,” he said, adding that he wants “accountability at all levels, and that starts at the top.”
Garcia signaled that top DHS officials, including former Secretary Kristi Noem and her top aide Corey Lewandowski, could face scrutiny over a $220 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign featuring Noem and allegations that she and Lewandowski used their positions for personal gain. The DOJ was reported in October to have opened a criminal investigation into Lewandowski over whether he personally profited from his government role.
Garcia will likely oversee only a fraction of the inquiries into Trump and his allies’ conduct launched by a Democratic Congress.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the incoming chair of the House Armed Services Committee, is expected to dig into Trump’s decision to launch an unauthorized aggressive war against Iran, as well as its financial cost, attacks on civilians, and the administration’s shifting justifications for the now eight-month-old conflict.
He also said he would examine the legality of Trump's unauthorized strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which have killed at least 243 people and have been described as illegal extrajudicial assassinations by human rights groups. He also called for more transparency surrounding the Trump administration's regime change operation and commandeering of oil in Venezuela, and its crippling blockade and threats to invade Cuba.

Smith, who has served in Congress for nearly three decades, described Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as less transparent than anyone who previously held the position.
"Since I became ranking member, I have had the cellphone number of every single secretary of defense," he told The Washington Post earlier this week. "Hegseth does not speak to me."
He has said, "There are Republicans who would support impeaching Hegseth who might not support doing it to Trump."
But that doesn't mean Trump is safe. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he would not rule out pursuing a third impeachment of Trump, though he cautioned that Democrats would have to weigh it against their other priorities.
Raskin, who managed Trump’s historic second impeachment, called it "one of the people's major instruments of constitutional self-defense against a president who continues to act like a king or an emperor."
"The House Progressive Caucus is ready for the collapse of the AI bubble. The rest of us should be also," said one economist.
As a progressive US senator warned Wednesday that Anthropic going public could leave "Americans holding the bag" if the artificial intelligence bubble bursts, The American Prospect revealed that key Democrats in the House of Representatives have crafted a resolution opposing federal bailouts for AI giants like the ones "too-big-to-fail banks" got nearly two decades ago.
The seven-page resolution obtained by Prospect executive editor David Dayen frames the 2008 global financial crisis as a result of "profit-driven financial risk-taking, fueled by Wall Street's speculative fervor and unleashed by years of zealous deregulation," as well as an example of what not to do when it comes to the booming AI sector.
"The economic harm of a multitrillion-dollar housing bubble caused by predatory lending, reckless financialization and securitization, and off-balance-sheet lending led to a massive surge in layoffs, with the unemployment rate hitting almost 10% at the trough of the Great Recession in 2009," the seven-page measure recalls. "The weak labor market persisted for nearly a decade."
Now, AI firms "hold trillions of dollars in debt, much of which is raised in opaque and unregulated private credit markets," the resolution continues. Financing terms of many "data centers as well as the costs and revenues of major artificial intelligence firms are not publicly available and... corporate borrowing to fund data center investments are multiples higher than projected revenues."
AI-related stock prices "have inflated even more than the tech giants of the 1990s," the measure notes, warning that "a collapse of an artificial intelligence bubble could have serious consequences for the economy, similar if not more significant than the end of the 1990s tech bubble or the 2008 global financial crisis."
Thus, it argues, "Congress must refuse to provide any additional funds or exceptional regulatory support to companies or financial institutions facing insolvency or financial collapse due to exposures to acute stress within the artificial intelligence market and must provide support to all harmed Americans instead."
While politicians from both parties have been ripped for their ties to Big Tech and AI specifically, the resolution explicitly calls out related failures under Republican President Donald Trump, who recently gathered industry leaders at the White House to sign a "self-policing" accord that critics said was "as dangerous as it is absurd."
House progressives' measure points out that "federal regulators have avoided applying robust scrutiny and oversight regarding enormously complicated debt and equity schemes used by artificial intelligence firms or the circular financing mechanisms involved" in the AI data center build-out.
Additionally, "the White House's artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar was personally invested in at least 449
companies" tied to AI "while pushing to eliminate government obstacles," the resolution says, "reflecting the administration's broad deregulatory focus and conflicts of interest" when it comes to this industry.
The House Progressive Caucus is ready for the collapse of the AI bubble. The rest of us should be also. No bailouts for the AI billionaires prospect.org/2026/10/28/h...
[image or embed]
— Dean Baker (@deanbaker13.bsky.social) October 28, 2026 at 7:53 AM
Though the resolution has not yet been introduced, Dayen reported on it less than a week before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump's second term. It's spearheaded by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
"Big Tech and Wall Street are taking enormous risks with billions in borrowed money to fuel the AI boom, despite growing warning signs of a dangerous bubble," Waters told him. "We cannot let history repeat itself. The American people should never again be forced to foot the bill for billionaires' reckless bets."
Casar, a 37-year-old former labor organizer, highlighted that "many of us, myself included, came into political life watching as many people who caused the crisis in 2008 or cheered it on weren't held accountable."
"We know that the American people were appalled at these Wall Street executives nearly two decades ago, and they're even more pissed off at these tech oligarchs today. We shouldn't be trying to make them whole," said the congressman, who also leads the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Polling released this past summer by Data for Progress found that among the "bad actors" Americans blame for the country’s concerning conditions, billionaires rank No. 1, but AI companies and social media giants are in the top 10.
The progressives' proposal "is a nonbinding 'sense of the House' measure," Dayen explained. "But it sets a marker that no bailout funds should be made available to AI companies. Casar wants the measure to be voted on early in the next Congress if Democrats take power, if not sooner, to get everyone on the record about an AI bailout."
Welcoming the resolution on social media, economist Leslie Ehrlich called it "both correct and good politics," adding, "Let the Republicans vote against it and be pro-bailouts."
"No senior should have to choose between putting food on the table, paying rent, or affording lifesaving medication."
A group of almost 20 Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday pressed US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to explain the adverse effects of President Donald Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act on older Americans, including the administration's plan to eliminate a program serving nearly 700,000 low-income seniors and expanded food stamp work requirements.
"At a time when Americans continue to face elevated grocery costs, Washington Republicans enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will reduce federal [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] spending by approximately $187 billion through 2034," 18 House Democrats led by Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-NJ) wrote in a letter to Rollins.
"The law expanded SNAP’s three-month time limit and associated work requirements to certain adults ages 55 through 64, restricted states’ ability to obtain geographic waivers from those requirements, and made additional changes to state cost-sharing requirements expected to reduce SNAP participation and benefits," the letter continues.
"These cuts come as the same law provides substantial tax benefits that will help disproportionately benefit the rich, with CBO finding that the law will decrease resources available to households towards the bottom of the income distribution while increasing resources for households toward the top," the lawmakers noted.
The letter decries Trump's stated goal of eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which the lawmakers described as "the most extensive hunger-relief federal program for seniors and services to nearly 700,000 low-income seniors across the nation."
"The administration justified the elimination of this crucial program by focusing 'on supporting seniors through the SNAP program' as they passed a law to make SNAP more inaccessible for seniors," the letter laments. "Congress has been responsible for keeping the CSFP fully funded and maintained while the administration continues to threaten this critical federal food assistance program."
"Even so, as Americans—particularly seniors—struggle to put food on the table, you have failed to meet the urgency of this affordability crisis, even as the department you lead reports that food prices have climbed another 3% in the past year," the Democrats added.
The letter requests state-by-state figures showing how many adults ages 55 to 64 have lost or suffered reductions in SNAP benefits because of expanded work requirements, as well as how many have received exemptions. The lawmakers are also seeking data regarding the health and financial consequences of eliminating the CSFP and how the administration would ensure seniors retain access to nutritious food. The legislators requested a written response from Rollins' office by November 6.
"You have failed to meet the urgency of this affordability crisis."
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), approximately 5.5 million people, including roughly 2 million children, have lost SNAP assistance since Trump signed the OBBBA in July 2025. This, despite more than 47 million Americans—including 1 in 5 children—living in food-insecure households.
Seniors are experiencing their own unique set of hardships, given that many of them have limited resources.
"Many seniors rely heavily on fixed or limited incomes from Social Security, retirement savings, and pensions, leaving them particularly vulnerable as the cost of living continues to rise," the letter states, adding that "rather than protect older and low-income Americans from rising costs, you and the Trump administration continue to pursue policies that threaten to make it harder for them to afford basic necessities."
The September 1 strike, which killed five women and children and wounded more than 70 other Iranians, is but one of several civilian massacres during Trump's illegal war of choice.
More than 70 House Democrats on Tuesday sought answers and accountability from the Pentagon regarding a likely US strike on a September wedding gathering in southern Iran that killed five civilians—all women and children—and wounded over 70 others.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Reps. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.) led 74 lawmakers in demanding an explanation for the September 1 bombing in Kuhestak and details of what the Trump administration is doing to protect Iranian civilians.
“We demand urgent answers regarding the United States’ role in this strike, why the strike proceeded given the clear risk of significant civilian harm, and what steps the [US Department of Defense] is taking to prevent further civilian casualties in Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.
The strike occurred at approximately 9:30 pm local time while preparations were underway for the wedding of the daughter of a local fisher.
According to witnesses interviewed by The Associated Press, around 150 women and children were gathered at the Mallahi family compound. The celebration was following a regional tradition in which women and men gather separately. The bride and groom had not yet arrived, and the main celebration had not begun. A bomb struck the room where dinner would have been served.
Four initial fatalities—two women and two children—were identified by Iranian authorities and human rights groups: 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri, 43-year-old Kolsoum Malahi Najandnia, 16-year-old Mohammad Mallahi, and 4-year-old Amir Mohammad Karimi. A fifth victim, 22-year-old woman Asiyeh Molainejad, died in a hospital on September 3.
Weapons experts concluded the blast was likely caused by a direct hit from a US munition. The Pentagon has not publicly accepted responsibility for the strike, which remains under investigation.
"This incident is regrettably among the latest in a string of civilian casualty incidents arising from the US-led war in Iran," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. "This includes a strike at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, on the first day of the war that killed a reported 175 civilians, including 120 children."
The United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran said it found “reasonable grounds" to believe that the Minab school strike constituted a war crime.
"While it has been reported that a preliminary investigation by the department found that the US military was responsible for the strike, over six months later the department has still not publicly acknowledged responsibility for the strike nor released the findings of its investigation," the lawmakers' letter notes.
"Similarly, reporting and independent analysis indicate that US forces were responsible for a strike at a youth sports hall in Lamerd, Iran, that killed 21 civilians, including 7 children, on February 28. While the department has denied responsibility, analysis by weapons experts found that the damage pattern is consistent with that of an American Precision Strike Missile," the lawmakers continued, referring to Lockheed Martin's next-generation surface-to-surface ballistic missile.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
“Maximum lethality," combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including US-backed Israeli massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US airstrikes in Iran, where tens of thousands of people have been killed or wounded during more than seven months of President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice, according to Iranian government figures.
The Washington, DC-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC) welcomed the lawmakers’ intervention, arguing that Iranian civilians must not be treated as expendable casualties of war.
“The lives of Iranian civilians cannot be treated as an acceptable cost of war,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi said in a statement. “These are families, children, and entire communities whose lives have been irreversibly altered by a military campaign that Congress never authorized."
“Credible allegations of unlawful attacks on civilians demand independent investigations, full public disclosure of the findings, and accountability for any violations of international humanitarian law,” Abdi added. “The Trump administration cannot be permitted to wage an unauthorized war in defiance of US and international law while evading responsibility for its devastating human consequences.”
"It's about setting a standard, and the Democrats can impeach, to uphold constitutional values, and at the same time, have a first-hundred-day agenda that deals with the cost of living," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
With the US midterm elections less than six weeks away and Republicans' congressional majorities at risk, both GOP leaders and Democrats are discussing the possibility that a Democratic-controlled Congress could impeach President Donald Trump a historic third time.
"They say they’re not going to, but we know they will—they'll do a third impeachment of President Trump," House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said of Democrats during a Sunday radio interview. "But that's just part of it. They're going to investigate the first family, they're going to investigate Cabinet secretaries."
In fact, Democratic leaders are not denying another potential impeachment effort targeting someone who has been condemned by a range of critics as "the most openly corrupt president in American history."
During an interview with The Associated Press published on Saturday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who could become speaker if Democrats reclaim the lower chamber, signaled that impeachment is on the table—and not just for Trump.
"We haven't ruled anything out... and we haven't ruled anything in," he said. "If folks have been stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people... we are going to hold the crooks accountable."
Jeffries and other Democrats "are preparing a vast oversight agenda" that is "as robust as it is daunting, spanning several House committees," the AP reported. "With majority power comes bigger budgets and staff, and the ability to investigate, subpoena, and potentially course-correct what the Democrats say are widespread corruption and abuses of power."
Annual financial disclosures released this summer show that Trump pocketed at least $2.2 billion—over half of it from his family’s cryptocurrency grift—during his first year back in office, and his stock trades since then have continued to generate alarm.
Trump's deployment of federal immigration agents to various US communities to abuse the rights of US citizens and immigrants alike as well as his illegal war on Iran—with its the resulting affordability crisis—have also fueled calls for impeachment.
Responding to suggestions from some that another impeachment wouldn't be a good use of Democrats' time, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said during a Sunday appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that "it's not about Donald Trump," who will be a lame duck and "increasingly irrelevant."
"The point is to stand up for the Constitution," Khanna explained. "Impeachment says that you can't get into an illegal war in Iran without constitutional approval. Impeachment says that you can't just start firing federal employees... in defiance of what Congress says. Impeachment says you can't do deals with foreign governments to allegedly enrich your own family."
"It's about setting a standard, and the Democrats can impeach, to uphold constitutional values, and at the same time, have a first-hundred-day agenda that deals with the cost of living," he added, pointing to issues such as free childcare, raising the minimum wage, and taxing billionaires. "We can do both."
Democrats have unveiled various articles of impeachment against Trump since his return to the White House last year. On Thursday, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who is retiring after this term, introduced 26 more, including for alleged abuses of power, violations of his oath of office, and corrupt use of the pardon authority.
"Trump is clearly the most impeachable president our country has ever endured," said Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "His continued presence in office is a danger to our democracy. That the sycophantic Republican majority in Congress is derelict in its duty does not mean that I must abandon my responsibilities."
Cohen stressed that "I took an independent oath to support and defend the Constitution. That commitment compels me to introduce this resolution today. When historians write about this period, and our constituents ask who stood up to President Trump's lawlessness, this resolution is the answer."
The House initially impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019. After his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, he became the first president to be impeached twice. However, the Senate acquitted him in both cases.
"We have said from the beginning, people, not politicians will be the final deciders on this DC power grab," said one campaigner. "We are moving forward to vote NO on Proposition A."
Although the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Friday greenlit President Donald Trump's voter purge database, it also helped deliver yet another blow to Missouri Republicans' push for a rigged congressional map.
"In 2022, the Missouri Legislature enacted a redistricting map for elections to the US House of Representatives. In 2025, the Missouri Legislature enacted a new map," says the high court's unsigned ruling. Like Republican legislators in other states, Missouri's lawmakers pursued the new districts in response to public pressure from the president.
"But under the Missouri Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, a new law such as the 2025 map does not take effect unless and until approved by voters in a referendum in the next election—at least where, as here, the number of voter signatures on the petition suffices to trigger a referendum," Friday's opinion explains.
Thus, on September 3, the document notes, "the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the 2025 redistricting map 'is not the law and has never been the law' in Missouri—and will not take effect unless and until approved by Missouri voters by referendum in the 2026 election."
However, Missouri Republicans fought back. The following week, Justice Brett Kavanaugh—a Trump appointee and member of the court's right-wing supermajority—delivered the first blow to the 2025 map. Just days later, the full court agreed, again tossing the redrawn districts.
The high court reiterated its position for a third time on Friday, with no noted dissents: "In short, as a matter of state law, the 2022 map—not the 2025 map—must be used in the 2026 congressional election."
The justices also gave clear directions to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, stating that they "should not enjoin or otherwise prohibit the use of the 2022 map," and "should not order or otherwise require Missouri to use the 2025 map" in the November midterm elections.
Trump's Republican Party is trying to cling to control of both chambers of Congress in the face of the president's unpopular and illegal war on Iran, which has exacerbated the country's affordability crisis.
With early voting underway and Election Day less than six weeks away, the high court highlighted that "at this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos."
Gov. Mike Kehoe—who last year called the special session to redraw the map and then signed House Bill 1—said that Friday's decision was "disappointing," but "nevertheless, Missouri will follow the court's order."
Meanwhile, Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, declared that "this victory is the final nail in the coffin of Missouri’s egregious mid-decade gerrymander for the 2026 midterms."
"Make no mistake: In the 2026 midterms, Missourians will not only vote on the Show Me State's 2022 congressional map, a map that keeps Kansas City together, but they will also have the opportunity to veto Republicans' egregious mid-decade gerrymander at the ballot box."
People Not Politicians Missouri, a campaign that has challenged the GOP map since it was passed a year ago and sought the latest intervention from the nation's top court, also welcomed its Friday decision.
"We are done with corrupt politicians trying to force their map into effect outside the process outlined in the Missouri Constitution," said the group's executive director, Richard von Glahn. "We have said from the beginning, people, not politicians will be the final deciders on this DC power grab. We are moving forward to vote NO on Proposition A."
Proposition A is the congressional map referendum. If enough voters oppose it, they can kill "the gerrymander that won't die," a map that targets the state's 5th Congressional District, currently held by Democratic US Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.
As The Associated Press reported Friday: "Cleaver was unopposed in the Democratic primary. Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won a six-way Republican primary under the revised districts. They remain the candidates for the general election, even though the district boundaries have reverted to their prior lines."
Journalist Jamie Dupree called the Friday ruling a "loss for the GOP," adding that "the Missouri map will be 5R-2D instead of 6-1."
“Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States."
Dozens of advocacy groups this week urged House Democratic leaders to force a vote on an existing war powers resolution aimed at endingr President Donald Trump's unauthorized aggression toward Cuba, including his administration's deadly de facto US oil embargo.
“Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States," 45 groups said in a letter dated September 9 to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Foreign Affairs and Rules Committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).
"Since January 2026, the Trump administration has imposed an oil blockade that has cut off the island from nearly all fuel imports, allowing only a single tanker to dock over the past seven months alongside minor US sales that are wholly insufficient to sustain the country’s economy and basic services," the letter continues.
"The consequences have been devastating and far-reaching, and the crisis is deepening," the groups stressed. "Cuba has endured at least six nationwide grid collapses this year—at times leaving over 9h million people without power, with outages stretching well beyond 20 hours in much of the country. Fuel shortages have stalled transportation, disrupted food and water supplies, and pushed a once-renowned universal healthcare system toward collapse and the rationing of care."
The groups behind the letter—which include American Friends Service Committee, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Demand Progress, Indivisible, National Nurses United, Pax Christi USA, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, and Win Without War—called for an immediate vote on Rep. Nydia Velázquez's (D-NY) Cuba War Powers Resolution, H.Con.Res. 106.
The privileged resolution—which can be called for a vote without approval from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—would direct the removal of US armed forces from hostilities within or against Cuba absent congressional authorization. The measure targets the de facto US oil blockade on Cuba, which proponents argue amounts to unauthorized hostilities against Cuba.
Velázquez's resolution came amid the Trump administration's escalating aggression against Cuba, including threats to attack or even invade the island, economic strangulation including the oil embargo and decades-old blockade that critics said were causing the deaths of infants and sick people, and the US Department of Justice indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 shoot-down of planes operated by a hostile US-based counterrevolutionary group following repeated warnings that they had violated Cuban airspace.
In April, US senators voted 51-47—with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joining all but two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky—to block a war powers resolution introduced in March by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
"Despite falling short of the majority, this was among the strongest votes in congressional history against the use of blockades, and one of the most important stands Congress has taken against US economic sanctions toward Cuba in over six decades," the 45 groups said in their letter. "The House should take a similarly forceful action at this crucial moment."
"The Missouri Supreme Court should throw the secretary of state in jail if this extremist continues to defy the law and multiple court orders," said US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Democracy defenders in Missouri and across the United States celebrated on Thursday after the US Supreme Court delivered its second blow to President Donald Trump's gerrymandering quest in as many days, tossing out the state GOP's desired congressional map.
The order had no noted dissents, despite the court's right-wing supermajority, which includes three Trump appointees. Among them is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had rejected the GOP's emergency effort to uphold the map on Tuesday evening, as US District Judge Stephen Clark, another appointee of the president, said that Missouri can't revert to its old map for the November midterms.
The high court's new order appears to allow the state to use the old map for the upcoming elections, in which Trump's Republican Party is trying to hold on to its narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with an affordability crisis fueled by the president's tariff regime and illegal war on Iran.
On the heels of the Texas GOP's map-rigging effort last year, Missouri Republicans targeted the 5th Congressional District—currently held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D), who has joined hundreds of thousands of state voters in opposing the new political lines.
Cleaver called Thursday's decision "a win for justice. A win for democracy. A win for the people of Missouri."
"It is my hope that state officials will start following court orders and end this shameful attempt to break Missouri law and silence Missouri voters," he said.
Opposition to the map has been spearheaded by the nonpartisan coalition People Not Politicians Missouri, whose executive director, Richard von Glahn, declared Thursday that "the law is the law, the Missouri Constitution is clear, as was the Missouri Supreme Court."
"Over 305,000 Missouri voters—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—took action to block this political power grab last fall. People, not politicians, will have the final say when they vote NO on Proposition A this November," he continued, referring to a veto referendum on the GOP's map.
Von Glahn also took aim at Missouri's Republican secretary of state, Denny Hoskins, who faces a contempt hearing at the state's top court, saying that he "has shown that he cannot effectively do the job he was elected to do—administer elections."
"First he refused to certify a referendum the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously said he had no legal basis to block," Von Glahn explained. "Then, even after that court barred the 2025 map outright, he told local election officials to use it anyway, leaving election clerks scrambling with early voting two weeks away. That isn't leadership, it's chaos of his own making, and it's why he's now facing a contempt hearing in front of the very court whose order he chose to defy."
"Missourians don't need a secretary of state who manufactures confusion; they need one who follows the law," he added. "Denny Hoskins has had every chance to do that and chose not to. The courts have settled this, now it's up to Missouri voters to finish the job and vote NO on Proposition A."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also called out Hoskins after the Thursday decision, suggesting on social media that "the Missouri Supreme Court should throw the secretary of state in jail if this extremist continues to defy the law and multiple court orders."
"You lost," he said. "The people of Missouri have won. It's over."
The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday found that Hoskins was in contempt of court for defying an order blocking the new map, but also that he is now in compliance because he directed the use of the 2022 districts.
This article has been updated with comment from US Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Adam Cochran, and with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision.
"They're afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It's not working people."
Rep. Delia Ramirez on Tuesday hit back at colleagues in the US House of Representatives who voted for a resolution condemning socialism "in all its forms."
During a speech on the House floor, Ramirez (D-Ill.) slammed the anti-socialism resolution, which passed with the support of eight Democrats joining all Republicans, as a meaningless distraction.
"Today my colleagues thought it was a good use of people's time... to come after a working people's platform and the people working to make that platform a reality," Ramirez said. "You know why? Because they're afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It's not working people."
Whether it’s “socialism”, a Twitch streamer, working-class candidates, or immigrants, my colleagues always have a boogeyman to condemn… Why? They're afraid to be honest about who they really work for and spoiler alert: it's not working people.
I call on my colleagues to put… pic.twitter.com/r4k4KWZg2S
— Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (@repdeliaramirez) September 1, 2026
The Illinois Democrat rattled off a list of Republican policies that benefit big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of working people, including cuts to Medicaid and support for President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
Ramirez then accused Republicans of pushing the resolution "because you're so afraid of working-class people coming into the next Congress" after the 2026 midterm elections.
"So let me be clear," she concluded. "Not only do I call on my colleagues to vote against this stupid resolution... but also to put this much energy into creating a world, a system that actually works for working people."
Ramirez was far from the only Democrat to rip the anti-socialism resolution.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) likewise condemned the "stupid resolution," which he said "ignores Americans who are more concerned about the cost of living than obsessing about socialism."
Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) suggested that a better use of Congress' time would be to "condemn the 34-count felon in the White House, not a bunch of people who just want universal healthcare."
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for the US House seat in New York's 13th congressional district, slammed the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the resolution.
"Democrats love talking about a 'big tent,' but then they vote in line with Republicans hell-bent on destroying our democracy," she wrote. "This resolution was aimed squarely at democratic socialists like me."
"How much damage will Democratic leaders cause to their own brand and party for AIPAC money?" asked one critic.
Progressive and pro-Palestine critics on Tuesday accused House Democratic leaders of ignoring the majority of party voters who oppose US military aid to Israel by appointing one of the most pro-Israel members of Congress as the top Democrat on a key Mideast subcommittee.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced the appointment of Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) as ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was assigned to the Oversight and Intelligence Subcommittee, Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) joined the Africa Subcommittee, and Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) was named to the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Moskowitz thanked Meeks and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on social media "for this important responsibility" and, in a separate post, vowed to "work to strengthen America’s relationships with Israel and our Gulf allies, expand regional peace, advance American diplomacy, and ensure our foreign policy is grounded in strength, security, and reality."
During his two terms in Congress, Moskowitz—who last week survived a primary challenge by pro-Palestine progressive Oliver Larkin—has repeatedly argued against conditioning armed aid to apartheid Israel on compliance with international law or protection of Palestinian civilians amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Israel's illegal occupation, colonization, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Moskowitz was one of only 12 Democrats who voted for a 2023 Republican aid package to Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual US funding—as the Israeli military killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.
Critics argued that placing one of Congress’ most outspoken supporters of Israel in a key Middle East policy position shows that Democratic leadership remains badly out of step with its own voters, a majority of whom concur with a United Nations commission of inquiry, human rights groups, scholars, and around 20 national governments who say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Moskowitz denies the Gaza genocide, has conflated criticism of Israeli crimes with hatred of Jews, and was denounced by House progressives including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, for authoring an amendment to ban US officials from using State Department funds to cite official Gaza casualty figures—which now include more than 250,000 Palestinians killed, wounded, or missing during Israel's onslaught.
Meeks' appointments come at a time when 3 in 4 Democratic voters oppose US aid to Israel—up from just 45% three years ago—and after the issue was a factor in former Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat by President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
In response to Moskowitz's appointment, the progressive organizing group Demand Progress issued a statement noting that the congressman "has consistently opposed placing conditions on military aid to Israel, repeatedly voted against the majority of House Democrats to sanction International Criminal Court officials, and earlier this year said he would oppose an Iran war powers resolution."
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said:
By making a hard-line Israel supporter their point person on Middle East policy, House Democratic leaders are doubling down on a failed approach to Israel that shows contempt for the clear and growing majority of Democratic voters who want to stop cutting blank checks for the Israeli government. Donald Trump’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and his commitment to keeping the US joined at the hip to Israel are wildly unpopular and have been a disaster for the nation. Elevating someone who consistently sides with Trump in support of Israel, and who has a long record as an Iran hawk, represents clear political malpractice on behalf of House Democratic leaders.
Palestine defenders and Democrats concerned about the possible fallout of elevating an Israel hawk to a top subcommittee post as the party seeks to win back control of Congress in November's midterm elections bdenounced the appointment of Moskowitz.
ReThinking Foreign Policy president Mitchell Plitnick called Meeks' move "very bad news."
"Moskowitz is a completely inappropriate choice, given how wildly out of step he is with Democratic voters on Mideast issues," he said on X. "It's yet another indication of why it is so desperately important that Democratic 'leaders' like Hakeem Jeffries and Gregory Meeks be replaced as soon as possible."
Erik Sperling, executive director at Just Foreign Policy, called the decision to appoint Moskowitz "shocking."
"Meeks and Jeffries are apparently intending to signal that the anti-war and pro-Palestinian movements are unwelcome in the [Democratic] Party?"
Writer Wajahat Ali asked on X, "How much damage will Democratic leaders cause to their own brand and party for AIPAC money?"
Ali was referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose campaign contributions have been a deciding factor in electing pro-Israel candidates to Congress and defeating those who advocate for Palestinian rights. So far, AIPAC has poured more than $100 million into the 2026 midterm elections—including around $30 million against Michigan Democratic US Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.
According to the watchdog group Track AIPAC, Moskowitz has received $833,288 in campaign contributions from the Israel lobby over the course of his career, Wasserman Schultz has taken $1,542,327, and Bell—who ousted former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—a staggering $18,126,578. Pocan, a pro-Palestine progressive, rejects AIPAC funding.
As for Jeffries and Meeks, Track AIPAC reports the former has taken $1,495,709 and the latter $986,946 in campaign contributions from the Israel lobby.
The local grassroots group NY Dumps AIPAC lamented Meeks' appointment of what it called "one of the most Islamophobic genocide cheerleaders in Congress to be the top House Dem overseeing Middle Eastern foreign policy."
"In doing so, Meeks is compromising world peace for the sake of AIPAC," the group said.
Some observers, including Zeteo News reporter Prem Thakker, noted that Tuesday's moves followed Jeffries' recent secret meeting with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and special envoy for peace missions.
Responding to Moskowitz's promotion, Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), highlighted polling published Monday by the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project showing that "Democrats in the first six states to vote in the 2028 presidential primary overwhelmingly demand sanctions and a total weapons embargo against Israel."
"At what point," asked Duss, "can Democratic voters finally have foreign policy committee leadership that actually represents the party’s anti-war majority instead of its small and thankfully dwindling hawkish minority?"