SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us senate
'A Guy Who Wants to Tinker Around the Edges': Sanders Makes the Case Against Schumer for Senate Leader
"In this moment in American history, Chuck's views are way out of touch with where the American people are at."
Nov 11, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday offered a blistering assessment of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's leadership, saying his approach to everything from Israel and artificial intelligence to economic inequality demonstrates why Democrats need new leadership.
"I think, in this moment in American history, Chuck's views are way out of touch with where the American people are at—and especially with where [the base of] the Democratic Party is," Sanders (I-Vt.) told John Nichols, executive director of The Nation.
"On issue after issue, I think he is just not in tune with where his constituents are at," he said of the New York Democrat.
Sanders—who acknowledges that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as determined by a UN commission of inquiry and many other experts—took particular aim at Schumer's continued support for US military aid to the country. Sanders argued that the United States should not provide "another nickel" in weapons assistance to an ally that the International Court of Justice and others say is an apartheid state, and whose prime minister is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The two-time social democratic presidential candidate also questioned whether Schumer would fight for a billionaire wealth tax to fund universal childcare, tuition-free public colleges, and affordable housing.
"And I think that basically on other issues Chuck is a guy who wants to tinker around the edges," Sanders said.
Schumer's decision last year to help advance a Republican government funding bill sparked intense backlash from progressives, who accused him of surrendering Democrats' leverage and called on him to resign.
Sanders also criticized Schumer for failing to meaningfully address the power of the technology industry's billionaire executives and the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence and data centers.
The criticism comes amid mounting progressive dissatisfaction with the party's congressional leadership following Democrats' sweeping midterm victories. As Common Dreams has reported, progressive organizers have argued that the electoral results represent a mandate for transformative change, not simply a return to business as usual under establishment Democrats.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has emerged as a potential alternative to Schumer—and one who Sanders said he would support.
"It's not a time for incrementalism," Van Hollen recently said. "It's a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda."
Van Hollen has urged colleagues not to give Schumer a "blank check" without commitments to an ambitious economic program.
Schumer has sounded confident that he will be elected majority leader after Democrats retake control of Congress in January.
"I am going to be elected leader, OK, and we're united on the issues," Schumer told The Washington Sun on Wednesday. "We're united. We're united on costs and chaos."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In New Poll, Over 80% of MoveOn Members Say They Oppose Schumer for Senate Majority Leader
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership."
Nov 11, 2026
A survey of progressive activists released on Wednesday shows an overwhelming demand for new leadership among Democrats in the US Senate.
The poll, which was conducted by MoveOn Civic Action, finds that 82% of MoveOn members who took part in the survey do not support Schumer becoming Senate majority leader next year when Democrats assume control of both chambers of the US Congress. MoveOn said it received more than 10,000 responses to the member poll.
MoveOn members also overwhelmingly say the new Senate leader should "use all their power" to reverse Republicans policies, and they list ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, overturning his tariffs, and repealing cuts to federal healthcare programs as their biggest priorities.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership that will help Democrats usher in affordability and accountability without delay or compromise in the next Congress," said Joel Payne, executive director of MoveOn. "We welcome and will support any potential Senate leader willing to meet the moment."
The MoveOn poll is the second survey released in the last week showing progressives overwhelmingly want an alternative to Schumer as Senate majority leader.
A poll of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday found that 72% of respondents want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him, and 22% who say they’re willing to see what he delivers.
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is open to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after having "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He’s Not Going to Run Unopposed': Sanders Rejects Schumer for Majority Leader
“This election was about change," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Nov 10, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he believes a member of the Senate Democratic caucus will emerge to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer for the majority leader post in the next Congress, the latest indication that the longtime—and deeply unpopular—Democratic leader might not get the coronation he expects.
“He’s not going to run unopposed, I don’t think,” Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters, announcing he will not back Schumer's bid for majority leader. “This election was about change. People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Schumer, who has led the Senate Democratic caucus for close to a decade, has publicly expressed certainty that his party will elect him as majority leader following Democrats' midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP. Senate Democrats are expected to hold a secret-ballot election next month, and Schumer needs the support of a simple majority of Senate Democrats to win the vote.
.@SenSanders (I-VT) says he will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader: "But in my view, the time is now for change and I will not be supporting Chuck to be re-elected as the Democratic leader." https://t.co/hGy4zPvDgS
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2026
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Schumer's aides "say he has locked down another term... having secured commitments of support from enough Democratic senators."
But a number of newly elected Democratic senators, as well as some veteran lawmakers, have publicly declined to endorse Schumer, raising the possibility of a viable challenge to his leadership.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the progressive favorite to challenge Schumer, said Monday that he is "in listening mode" on running for the leadership position. Last week, Van Hollen argued that Senate Democrats should not back Schumer without clear commitments to advance "a very bold kitchen table agenda."
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations," said Van Hollen, a Medicare for All supporter and outspoken critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. "It’s not a time for incrementalism."
"After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senator-elect from Michigan, said last week that he believes Van Hollen would "be an amazing Senate majority leader."
"Of course, that’s a choice he has to make about whether or not he wants to pursue that," said El-Sayed, one of several newly elected Democrats who have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post.
Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, and James Talarico of Texas have also said they want new leadership in the upper chamber.
Progressive advocacy groups and a machinists union with around 600,000 members are among those backing the newly elected Democrats' call for fresh leadership following the party's historic midterm wins.
“Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump," the advocacy group Indivisible wrote on social media last week. "After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
On Tuesday, RootsAction launched a campaign aimed at encouraging Van Hollen to challenge Schumer for the leadership post. The group said it sent mass emails urging supporters across the country to contact their senators and demand that they back Van Hollen.
"As the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer has been a devoted servant of corporatism, Big Tech, go-slow status-quo economics, and Israel-right-or-wrong policies—and he has the receipts (in the form of campaign cash) to prove it," RootsAction's nationwide email reads. "Even though voters across the country—not just Democrats—rejected those policies at the polls, Schumer will have even more power in January as the Senate Majority Leader... unless someone challenges him for that position."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Illegal and Senseless’: 71% of Americans Want Swift End to Trump’s Iran War
"Lawmakers can act on that right now by passing legislation to prohibit more funding for the war, and by not passing any bills that continue to fund it," said one policy expert.
Nov 10, 2026
As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is expected to face an impeachment vote in the US House in part for his role in launching the illegal war with Iran, declared Tuesday that the US had "achieved a historic MILITARY VICTORY" in the Middle Eastern country, the latest polling on the broadly unpopular conflict suggests few Americans would be convinced by such claims.
Seventy-one percent of people surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos said they wanted the US Congress to urgently pass legislation to end the war in Iran, in which more than 3,400 Iranians, 13 US service members, and thousands of people across the Middle East have been killed as the conflict has wreaked havoc on economies around the world.
Those who were demanding a swift end to the war included 93% of Democrats, 70% of independents, and 51% of Republican voters who expressed their disapproval in the days after the Democratic Party's victory in the midterm elections.
Sixty-three percent of respondents said that Congress should focus "a great deal" or "quite a bit" on ending the war in the first 100 days of the new legislative session, starting January 3, and 54% said the negative impact of the conflict, such as higher gas prices, have not been worth any benefit even as Hegseth and President Donald Trump have claimed, without offering any evidence, that the US waged the war to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
"Their navy sunk. Their air force grounded. Their defense industrial base—gone. More than 80% of their nuclear industrial base—gone. Their military in ruin. The ironclad blockade, UNBROKEN," said Hegseth Tuesday, without mentioning that the Trump administration had declared months before waging the war that it had already weakened Iran's nuclear infrastructure. "We control the Strait of Hormuz."
Tehran has disputed Hegseth's repeated claims of victory, and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, on Monday evening called on the Trump administration to "SURRENDER to the seven conditions Iran has repeatedly set out," including an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, an end to fighting on all fronts, the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil and gas sales, and other measures and reparations.
Meanwhile, Trump, who faced a 32% approval rating in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, attempted to deflect questions about ending the conflict, telling reporters Monday: "Iran, militarily, is effectively over. We're just keeping it the status quo."
He added that the US military is "fully locked and loaded with the best equipment ever made" but said, "We don't think there's going to be any reason to use it however."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute of Responsible Statecraft, wrote at Substack Tuesday that Trump may ultimately reject "both war and peace" and choose a "Swiss cheese status quo" that leaves the conflict simmering without any major resolution.
In that scenario, he wrote, Trump "walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality imperceptibly begins to let it wither away."
"Given Trump’s aversion to admitting defeat, his fear of coming across as a loser, his impatience with complicated diplomacy, his obsession with outdoing Obama’s [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], and Iran’s disinterest in giving him an ego-soothing exit ramp, he may end up choosing the Swiss cheese walk-away option," wrote Parsi.
While Hegseth continued to deny the reality of the deeply unpopular war, the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy urged Democratic leaders in the US House and Senate to listen to the vast majority of Americans and take action immediately, without waiting for the new session to begin, to cut off funding for the war.
The group reminded Democrats ahead of the election that they could block more funding for the Iran War on December 11, when current government spending expires, and force a government shutdown if Trump insists on continuing the conflict after that date.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is considering a possible run to serve as Senate Majority Leader, threw his support behind blocking the funding.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll provide Democrats with clear marching orders.
"A 71% supermajority of Americans, including most Republicans, want Congress to end the Iran war," he said. "Lawmakers can act on that right now by passing legislation to prohibit more funding for the war, and by not passing any bills that continue to fund it."
Seeing the poll numbers, political scientist Yousef Munayyer said that many Americans were "enraged" by Trump's decision to join Israel in attacking Iran not just because "it was a stupid decision, [but] it was a stupid decision that was taken with no public debate at all."
"There was not effort at all on the part of the White House to present a rationale for this or convince the public ahead of time," said Muayyer. "They didn't feel they had to because they felt empowered to do whatever the hell they wanted and had a Republican-controlled Congress who would allow it. Voters saw that not only as stupidity, but out-of-control stupidity that needed to be checked before it further wrecked the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defeating Schumer and Jeffries Is a Fight That Matters
We’re not just fighting Trump and MAGA. To keep the promises candidates made in the 2026 elections, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions.
Nov 10, 2026
We’ve spent most of the last decade under MAGA occupation or the threat of it. Donald Trump removed any pretense that our government works as it is, or that our checks and balances are enough. So voters keep asking for fighters: people who’ll stand up for them, demand affordability and accountability, and restore democracy. The problem is, if you don’t know who you’re fighting, it’s easy to mistake opponents for friends.
That confusion is rearing its ugly head right now in the fight over who’ll lead Democrats in the House and Senate. On one hand, you have Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer: deeply unpopular, mistrusted, the face of a broken Democratic brand. On the other, you have insider logic that says they’re not to be questioned. They’re the next leadership.
In late October, before the election, we ran 30 polls in 11 states. In every one, more voters wanted someone else than wanted Jeffries as Speaker or Schumer as leader. Schumer never topped 14% of likely voters. Jeffries never topped 23%. Even among Democrats, 59% want someone other than Schumer.
Now we’re going to run another set to show that support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped. The new members and the Progressive Caucus need to know their districts are behind them. These polls, these petitions, this is how we tell them we’ve got their back.
Among newly elected members like Darializa Avila Chevalier, Melat Kiros, Donovan McKinney, Claire Valdez and Chris Rabb, and progressive leaders like Maxwell Frost, Ro Khanna, AOC and Rashida Tlaib, the worry is palpable. This is the first of many fights, and the first test of whether we’ve actually sent fighters to Washington. We’re not just fighting Trump and MAGA. To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed and powerful institutions. People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.
A healthcare system that works, enough housing, modern infrastructure built at speed and scale, a foreign policy that stops participating in genocides and blowing up children’s schools: that’ll take courage, it’ll take conviction, it’ll take risk. Some people will probably lose their seats.
When I first worked for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she took that risk. She did a sit-in in the Speaker’s office. Now she’s doing whiteboards telling us why standing up to leadership isn’t reasonable. That’s not because the people in these jobs are bad. The jobs are built to be pressurized containers. They’re built for conformity: wait your turn, keep your head down, keep your mouth shut. They’re built to make you forget you represent 700,000 people back home, that you’re their voice, and that you matter.
It makes no common sense to put two deeply unpopular people in charge who won’t embrace the solutions most likely to help Americans quickly and show we have bigger, bolder ideas than Republicans. You can’t negotiate leadership into being different people. As long as they hold that power, people with bigger and better ideas will be subservient to it.
That’s why I’m excited to see people and organizers all across this country begging the people they just elected to stand up and fight for them, even against their own party’s establishment. I hope they get brave enough. We need a united party, but not one united behind people who want to time travel back to 2014 or 2015. That’s the road that led us here: Donald Trump, a strongman wannabe dictator, elected twice because people are rejecting the status quo in ways too few understand.
You might hear there aren’t enough of us, that we need to elect more progressives first. But there are nearly a hundred members in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. If even half of them said no, not this Speaker, we want someone like Ayanna Pressley, Joe Neguse or Maxine Waters, someone else, that’d be plenty to block Hakeem Jeffries. The Progressive Caucus is one of the biggest caucuses in the House. It just doesn’t act like one. It doesn’t vote like one. It doesn’t pressure like one. It doesn’t fight like one.
So when we say we need fighters, this is what we mean. This is that time.
I know it’s exhausting. I’m finishing this email at 1:30 in the morning. Trust me, I hear you. But this is a fight that matters. And even if we don’t win it, we’re building the muscles. This exercise is worth the effort. I think it’s a fight worth having.
Help support the effort to do the polling and organizing work necessary to wage this battle. Visit A Fight Worth Having today.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Reasons Chuck Schumer Should Not Be Senate Majority Leader
The voters have spoken. They want more than a change in which party controls Congress—they want a change in direction, a break from politics as usual, and leaders willing to challenge entrenched power.
Nov 10, 2026
Democrats have just won back control of Congress, delivering a major rebuke to Donald Trump and his policies. But now comes another critical question: Who should lead the new Democratic majority? Let’s look at the Senate.
Chuck Schumer has been in Congress for nearly 46 years—18 in the House and almost 28 in the Senate. He has led Senate Democrats since 2017 and is already declaring that he expects to be reelected majority leader.
But the public is clamoring for new leadership. A recent NBC News poll found that just 13% of voters view Schumer favorably! While most sitting senators seem reluctant to oppose him, eight newly elected Democratic senators—Abdul El-Sayed, Peggy Flanagan, Troy Jackson, Juliana Stratton, Adam Hamilton, James Talarico, Chris Pappas, and Annie Andrews—have either openly opposed Chuck Schumer or withheld their support. And there is a possibility that Senator Van Hollen will put his hat in the ring.
In addition to 10 reasons that Hakeem Jeffries should not be the next Speaker of the House, here are 10 reasons why Schumer should not lead Democrats in the US Senate.
1. He continues to defend Israel
Few issues demonstrate the growing divide between Democratic leaders and their progressive base more clearly than Israel.
Schumer has described himself as a Shomer Yisrael, a guardian of Israel, pledging to fulfill that role “unflinchingly, unstintingly and with all of my strength.” In a March 2024 Senate speech, delivered as Israel's assault on Gaza was provoking worldwide outrage, Schumer declared, “We love Israel in our bones,” and described establishment of the state of Israel as one of the most heartfelt causes of his life.
He has condemned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and encouraged states to take action against boycotts of Israel.
According to OpenSecrets, Chuck Schumer has received more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from pro-Israel interests over his congressional career, placing him among the largest recipients of such funding.
In July 2025, as images of starvation and mass civilian suffering in Gaza horrified the world, Bernie Sanders forced Senate votes on resolutions blocking certain weapons sales to Israel. In an extraordinary shift, a majority of Senate Democrats supported restrictions on those transfers. Schumer voted against both resolutions.
Schumer has criticized Netanyahu and Israeli settler violence, yet he continues to support weapons sales to Israel and has not called for ending the nearly $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid—something that, ironically, both Trump and Netanyahu have suggested. Nor has he publicly opposed Section 1217 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which would deepen U.S.-Israeli military integration through joint weapons research, technology development, and defense production.
There’s no way Schumer would lead the Senate in carrying out what the voters want: An end to support for Israel.
2. His career is deeply intertwined with Wall Street, corporate donors, and PACs
Schumer's relationships with wealthy donors are among the most consequential features of his political career. Representing New York, the center of American finance, he has cultivated close ties with Wall Street executives, major banks, investment firms, and powerful corporate interests. His 2022 reelection campaign raised nearly $38 million, including hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs and employees associated with financial giants Blackstone, KKR, and BlackRock.
These connections go far beyond campaign contributions. Between 1989 and 2010 alone, Schumer received nearly $9 million from the securities and investment industry. In 2007, he helped obstruct efforts to close the notorious carried-interest loophole, which allows wealthy private-equity managers to pay preferential tax rates on certain earnings. That same year, he championed proposals to ease Wall Street regulations—just before the financial crisis devastated millions of American families.
These corporate donors aren't giving money out of charity. They have billions at stake in congressional decisions on taxes, healthcare, financial regulation, and military spending. Schumer may talk about standing up for working people, but how can Democrats credibly challenge corporate greed and Wall Street power when their leader has spent decades cultivating the very industries they claim to confront?
3. He has refused to embrace Medicare for All
Millions of Americans struggle with medical debt, insurance denials, enormous deductibles, and the constant fear that illness could destroy their financial security. Schumer identified healthcare affordability as one of five major priorities for the new Democratic Congress. Yet he has refused to embrace the real solution: Medicare for All.
In April 2025, Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to establish such a comprehensive national health program that could save an estimated $1 trillion a year by cutting out private insurance companies while guaranteeing healthcare for everyone. Among its original cosponsors were Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Jeff Merkley, and Schumer's fellow New York senator, Kirsten Gillibrand.
Schumer was conspicuously absent and never brought the bill to a Senate floor vote, even when Democrats controlled the chamber.
Instead, he has focused on expanding the Affordable Care Act, providing subsidies to make private insurance more affordable, and lowering prescription drug costs. But those policies preserve a system in which private insurance companies retain enormous power over patients' access to healthcare.
It’s no mystery why. Schumer has received millions in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and insurance industry interests.
The Democrats–indeed the country–need a leader who will start laying the groundwork for Medicare for All now so it can become a reality in 2029 under a new president.
4. He has failed to champion a new generation of progressive leaders
At a time when voters are demanding bold new leadership, Chuck Schumer has repeatedly failed to embrace progressive candidates who are energizing the Democratic Party.
Perhaps the most glaring example is Zohran Mamdani. Even after Mamdani won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor and inspired an extraordinary grassroots movement, Schumer NEVER endorsed him. Even on Election Day, he refused to say whether he had voted for his own party's nominee. What an astonishing failure by New York's senior senator to support such an exciting new leader!
In Michigan, Schumer backed establishment favorite Haley Stevens over progressive Abdul El-Sayed, who defeated her in the Democratic Senate primary. Just two days before the general election, Stevens shocked Democrats by endorsing Republican Mike Rogers. Schumer condemned her betrayal, but the episode raised serious questions about his political judgment.
In Florida, progressive Angie Nixon proved to be a remarkable candidate, coming within three percentage points of defeating Republican Senator Ashley Moody in a state Trump had won by 13 points. Bernie Sanders held four rallies for Nixon, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee provided no financial assistance. Schumer failed to champion a candidate who, with stronger national support, might have delivered one of the election's most stunning victories.
In Mississippi, Scott Colom mounted an extraordinary challenge to Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith in a state that hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1982. Yet national party support came only late in the campaign, despite Colom's unexpectedly strong showing.
These races raise a fundamental question: Why does Schumer repeatedly fail to recognize and invest in dynamic candidates who could transform the Democratic Party? Instead of nurturing emerging talent, he has too often backed establishment favorites or stood on the sidelines while grassroots movements lead the way..
5. He is a supporter of the military-industrial complex
While Americans struggle with soaring living costs, Washington continues pouring extraordinary sums into the Pentagon and the military contractors that profit from war.
For fiscal year 2027, Trump proposed an astonishing $1.5 trillion military budget. Schumer opposed the increase but has not made significant cuts to military spending a central Democratic priority.
Schumer has also been an unwavering defender of NATO and a leading advocate for military assistance to Ukraine. He has repeatedly attacked Trump for being “soft on Russia,” demanding tougher sanctions against Moscow and greater military support for Ukraine. He helped push through tens of billions of dollars in military aid and opposed interruptions in weapons shipments. Rather than making negotiations to end the war his central priority, Schumer has consistently emphasized military assistance, economic pressure, and strengthening NATO.
The next Democratic majority should challenge the enormous power of the military-industrial complex and redirect resources toward healthcare, housing, education, and other urgent needs. This is unlikely to happen with Chuck Schumer at the helm.
6. He won’t call for ICE to be dismantled
While Trump has escalated his immigration crackdown, Schumer has focused primarily on calls to reform ICE rather than abolish the agency. Senator Ed Markey has explicitly demanded that ICE be defunded and abolished, while Bernie Sanders has called for eliminating tens of billions in additional funding. Senator Andy Kim has repeatedly visited detention facilities, spoken directly with detainees, and fought to shut down Newark's notorious Delaney Hall. Senator Chris Van Hollen even traveled to El Salvador to fight for the return of a wrongfully deported Maryland resident.
Schumer has spoken out against ICE abuses, opposed a new detention facility in New York, and helped advocate for the release of Bronx student Dylan Lopez Contreras. But as Senate Democratic leader, his approach has centered on reforming ICE rather than dismantling it.
That is simply not enough. With Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's mass deportation agenda and one of the most virulently anti-immigrant figures in American politics, now elevated to White House chief of staff, the danger to immigrant communities has only intensified. This is no time for timid reforms or half-measures. Democrats need Senate leadership willing to demand the abolition of ICE.
7. He voted for the disastrous Iraq War
In October 2002, Schumer voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, millions of Americans took to the streets in protest, including hundreds of thousands in New York City on February 15, 2003, in one of the largest anti-war demonstrations in U.S. history. Despite this massive outpouring of opposition from his own constituents, Schumer had voted to authorize the disastrous war and went on to support billions of dollars in additional war funding.
The invasion, launched on the basis of lies about weapons of mass destruction, became one of America's greatest foreign policy disasters. It killed enormous numbers of Iraqis, displaced millions, destabilized the region, and cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
The historical record matters, especially as Congress again confronts questions of war, presidential power, and military intervention. His vote to authorize that disastrous war remains an essential part of evaluating his foreign policy judgment.
8. He opposed Obama's landmark Iran nuclear agreement
In 2015, Schumer broke with President Barack Obama to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement, widely regarded as Obama's signature foreign policy achievement. The deal was a major diplomatic breakthrough, designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons without resorting to war. Yet Schumer sided with Republicans and hardline opponents of the agreement, provoking a fierce backlash from progressives and supporters of diplomacy.
His opposition raises an important question today: Does Schumer genuinely support a diplomatic resolution to the war with Iran, or is his opposition primarily driven by the fact that it is Trump's war? His record of opposing one of the most significant diplomatic opportunities with Iran casts doubt on his commitment to pursuing diplomacy over military confrontation.
9. He has a history of giving in to Trump
In March 2025, Democrats faced one of their first major confrontations with Trump's second administration. Republicans pushed through a government funding bill that Democrats had little role in writing, while Trump and Elon Musk were dismantling federal agencies and threatening essential public services.
Democrats had leverage in the Senate, where Republicans needed their votes to overcome a filibuster. But rather than insist on concessions, Schumer announced he would help advance the Republican bill.
The backlash was enormous. Progressive organizations called for his resignation, House Democrats erupted in anger, and even Nancy Pelosi publicly broke with Schumer.
Schumer argued that a government shutdown would give Trump and Musk even more freedom to dismantle the federal government. But his critics saw a fundamental failure of leadership: Democrats had an opportunity to confront the administration and instead helped pass its funding legislation.
The episode became a defining moment in Schumer's leadership—and a source of lasting doubts about how aggressively he will confront Trump in future battles.
10. He has failed to challenge the corporate power driving inequality and environmental destruction
Schumer's record reflects the limits of an establishment Democratic Party that too often compromises with powerful corporate interests.
In 2022, Schumer struck a deal with Senator Joe Manchin to fast-track energy projects, including fossil fuel infrastructure, provoking outrage from environmental justice groups. In 2024, he championed a bipartisan immigration bill that would have sharply restricted asylum protections.
And now, in November 2026, Schumer voted to advance legislation that environmental groups have dubbed the “dirty data center deal.” The bill would accelerate permitting for massive AI data centers, pipelines, and other energy infrastructure while weakening environmental protections. Tribal leaders warn that it would also undermine tribal sovereignty by weakening consultation requirements and making it harder for Indigenous communities to protect their ancestral lands, cultural heritage, and sacred sites. Despite protests by environmental and Indigenous rights groups, Schumer voted to move the legislation forward, arguing that the bill could lower energy costs.
Democrats face a fundamental choice between accommodating powerful industries and protecting communities, workers, and the environment.
Schumer’s incremental reforms in areas such as climate investments, prescription drugs, and infrastructure legislation are no substitute for confronting the enormous power of corporations and billionaires.
The voters have spoken. They want more than a change in which party controls Congress—they want a change in direction, a break from politics as usual, and leaders willing to challenge entrenched power.
Will Democrats in the Senate embrace the change voters demanded, or return to the same old leadership that has failed to deliver it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
600,000-Member Machinists Union Calls on Schumer To Allow ‘A New Generation To Lead’ Democrats
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said the IAM Union international president.
Nov 10, 2026
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's bid to continue leading the Democratic Party when it takes control of the US Senate in January continued to falter Monday night as a key machinists' union asked the New York senator to step aside and allow "a new generation to lead Senate Democrats."
In a letter, Brian Bryant, international president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union) thanked Schumer for "many years of leadership, friendship, and unwavering commitment to working people" before telling him that "after thoughtful discussions," the IAM Union Executive Council had opted not to support Schumer's push to remain as the Senate leader.
"With the utmost respect and appreciation for your service, we respectfully urge you not to seek another term as Senate
Democratic leader," Bryant wrote. "We also encourage all returning and newly elected Democratic senators to join together through a fair and open process to select a consensus leader who can unite the party, build on your legacy and carry forward a bold vision for working people."
The letter came hours after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told reporters that he was considering a challenge to Schumer, after initially saying he was not interested in running for the Senate majority leader post following the party's electoral sweep last week.
Candidates who won Senate seats include several outspoken proponents of Medicare for All, such as Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.), Troy Jackson (D-Maine), and Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.), and others who centered in their campaigns the need to decisively take on billionaires and worsening economic inequality.
A decision by Schumer to step aside in favor of "new leadership," said Bryant, would allow the party to "turn this moment into lasting progress."
He wrote that the party must push to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, restore collective bargaining rights to all federal workers, reinstate Affordable Care Act and give "every American the healthcare they need, and pass "meaningful rail safety legislation."
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said Bryant. "The IAM Union’s Workers vs. Billionaires movement reflects a growing desire for an economy and political system that puts working families ahead of wealthy special interests. We have a tremendous opportunity to build on this momentum, but doing so will require fresh ideas, new energy, and a new generation of leadership."
Bryant's message made clear that "it's time" for Schumer to step aside, said author and commentator Don Winslow.
"The Democratic Party will make a catastrophic mistake if they lock out all of these voters for a man who has been in political office for 51 years," said Winslow.
The letter came after Schumer's support among senior Democrats appeared to crack on Monday, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) telling reporters, “We need a conversation about leadership going forward because we need new energy and ideas."
But later that evening, the senator said that he expected Schumer to become Senate majority leader and plans to back him.
Van Hollen, who has reportedly received a steady stream of phone calls since last week from voters calling on him to take the helm of the party in the Senate, reiterated Monday evening that he believes there should be "a full caucus discussion" about the path forward.
"I am in listening mode," he said of the possibility that he could challenge Schumer. "There are clearly lots of people around the country and a number of our members, quite a few of our members, who want to have this discussion... I haven't closed the door."
He also told Semafor: “I am listening to the thousands of people who have been calling for change, but especially listening to our members, but in particular to new members who have just come off the campaign trail. So what I've said from the very beginning is, we shouldn't have a coronation.”
Van Hollen also met Monday with Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who has not endorsed Schumer.
On Monday afternoon, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is also facing calls from newly elected progressive lawmakers to step aside in his push to become House speaker, released a statement saying that "Democrats are united and ready to lead."
But several representatives-elect, including Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Adam Hamawy (D-NJ) suggested that even if Jeffries secures the top post in the House, he will have to contend with many new members of Congress who will be pushing for far-reaching action.
"It's about the agenda, an agenda that actually reflects the priorities of the American people," said Kiros. "We might have different ideas about how to accomplish certain things but we all agree that we have to reduce costs for working families, we all agree that we have to root out corruption in government, we all agree that our foreign policy has to reflect our values. And in order for us to be able to do that we need an agenda that's bold enough to meet that vision. And so what we're demanding is an agenda, it's not about the individual."
"We, as progressives, want to build," she added. "We want to accomplish things, we want to work together with this caucus to actually get work done, and we haven't had that conversation yet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days After Midterm Blowout, 22 Democrats Join GOP to Advance 'Massive Giveaway' to Big Oil
"It’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," one critic said of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act.
Nov 10, 2026
The US Senate on Monday voted in bipartisan fashion to advance a fossil fuel industry-backed permitting reform bill that would weaken the Clean Water Act and other key environmental protections to make it easier for the federal government to streamline energy projects—including climate-wrecking gas pipelines.
The 73-25 vote to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) sets the stage for what's expected to be a contentious amendment process. The bill's Democratic supporters—including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chuck Schumer of New York—argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects. Environmentalists, tribal organizations, and progressive lawmakers say the legislation is a gift to fossil fuel companies, tech giants, and other corporate interests at the expense of local communities and the planet.
The 22 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who voted with Republicans for passage were:
- Blumenthal (D-CT)
- Coons (D-DE)
- Cortez Masto (D-NV)
- Fetterman (D-PA)
- Gallego (D-AZ)
- Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Heinrich (D-NM)
- Hickenlooper (D-CO)
- Kim (D-NJ)
- King (I-ME)
- Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Ossoff (D-GA)
- Peters (D-MI)
- Reed (D-RI)
- Rosen (D-NV)
- Schatz (D-HI)
- Schumer (D-NY)
- Shaheen (D-NH)
- Slotkin (D-MI)
- Warner (D-VA)
- Warnock (D-GA)
- Whitehouse (D-RI)
"The Senate’s supporters of BAAJA just cleared an initial hurdle towards offering Big Oil and Big Tech a massive giveaway at the expense of our clean air, clean water, and communities' right to protect themselves from polluting projects," said Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International. "Just days after voters demanded accountability and relief from soaring costs, 73 senators chose Trump’s energy policies over the American people."
“BAAJA is not a compromise—it’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," Bast added.
The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House—which has waged war on clean energy projects while working to boost fossil fuel production—and the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US. Trump said Monday that he would not approve the construction of any wind turbines, confirming critics' fears that the White House sees the bill as an opportunity to advance dirty energy projects.
The bill would exempt pipeline expansions and other energy projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and make it harder for opponents of the projects to challenge them in court. The legislation would also restrict courts' ability to pause projects due to inadequate environmental reviews.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the 25 senators who voted against advancing BAAJA on Monday, said in a statement that while the legislation "has a number of other features that merit careful analysis," it "has never had a public hearing" despite its potentially massive impact.
Merkley warned that, as currently written, the bill "accelerates the extraction and burning of fossil fuels," effectively offsetting the benefits of the measure's promotion of clean energy projects.
“The bill restricts states’ ability to raise and address clean water concerns on gas pipelines as well as transmission lines," said Merkley. "It shortens timelines that make it hard-to-impossible for grassroots and community groups to raise concerns about projects. It eliminates tools that states and localities use to fight the development of new data centers and detention centers. And it impacts the sovereignty and rights of tribes."
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," the senator added. "But the current bill raises too many serious issues that require more deliberation."
Environmental groups and tribal organizations urged lawmakers to pause consideration of the permitting bill until the next Congress, when Democrats will take control of the House and the Senate.
“We shouldn’t and don’t need to endanger our wildlife just to save a few dollars on gas," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America. "We shouldn’t and don’t need to weaken the rules that protect our water from pollution in order to build more clean energy. We shouldn’t facilitate more global-warming air pollution. And we definitely shouldn’t be taking away the public’s right to weigh in on projects that can ruin their environment, make them sick, and lessen their quality of life.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Boost Pressure on Schumer to Block Permitting Bill That Guts Environmental Protections
"If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible."
Nov 09, 2026
Environmental groups are making a last-ditch push to persuade Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to block a bipartisan permitting bill that they warn would speed up approvals for polluting projects and data center infrastructure.
Activists gathered outside Schumer’s (D-NY) Midtown Manhattan office Monday morning, hours before the US Senate’s planned evening vote on whether to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).
In a media advisory, organizers from the New York Public Interest Research Group, Food & Water Watch, and New York Communities for Change, who led Monday’s protest and a previous one at Schumer’s apartment on Friday, called the bill an “aggressive attack on federal environmental protections in order to facilitate rapid, unregulated development of fracked gas power plants, dirty fossil fuel pipelines, and expensive hyperscale data centers.”
The motion needs 60 votes to advance, so some Democrats will have to support holding a final vote. The bill’s leading Democratic sponsor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), said he believes supporters “have the votes to proceed.”
The bill faces longer odds in the US House of Representatives, especially after Tuesday’s Democratic blowout in the midterms, when voters across the country also backed restrictions on data centers.
Sponsors have revised the bill, but David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the amendment “fails to address the fundamental imbalance of the legislation” in favor of polluting energy.
“To get bipartisan support for negligible reductions in emissions,” he said, “this deal would convert compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act into largely voluntary exercises.”
While some Democratic proponents of the bill have argued that these compromises are necessary to speed up permits for clean energy infrastructure, Watkins said existing law already allows much of that work and saw no need to enact “the most significant legislative reversal in environmental and community protections in decades.”
A coalition of conservation groups, including Earthjustice Action, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to the Senate on Monday urging members to delay the vote until newly elected members of the US Congress—some of whom made opposition to data centers central to their campaigns—can be sworn in.
“The elections on November 3 sent a clear message from the American public denouncing the administration’s actions over the past two years and, in states across the country, rejecting the accelerated proliferation of data centers,” they wrote. “We strongly encourage you to heed the public’s wishes and advance energy infrastructure needs and an affordability agenda without making false and unnecessary trade-offs that severely undermine tribal sovereignty and our bedrock environmental, public lands, waters, wildlife, ocean, and historic preservation laws.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said he would vote against advancing the bill without substantial changes, adding that “robust consideration of the bill should be a priority in the new Congress.”
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," he said. But, he added, "Getting more renewable electrons where they are needed doesn’t tackle climate change if you simultaneously promote the burning of more fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does exactly that."
As questions mount about whether Democratic leaders will use their new mandate to pursue a bold legislative agenda, some see BAAJA as a worrying sign that Schumer and other party leaders may squander the moment by reverting to business as usual.
“If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement. “Young people and the working class deserve it. To stop the climate crisis, America needs Senate Democrats to fight harder. Senate Democrats must deliver.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Considers Challenging Schumer as Cracks Emerge in Support for Key Democrat
"We need clear and moral leadership in the Senate. We need people who understand this moment and what it demands," one supporter said. "Do it."
Nov 09, 2026
"Do not stop calling!" was the message that the progressive grassroots organization People for Bernie took from the news Monday that not only had Sen. Chris Van Hollen announced that he was considering a run to replace Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after calls poured into his office, but cracks were also appearing to form in Schumer's support among his longtime colleagues in the upper chamber.
As Punchbowl News reported that Van Hollen (D-Md.) had not ruled out running for the top leadership post less than a week after Democrats swept the crucial midterm elections, it was reported that Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declined to endorse Schumer (D-NY) to be Senate majority leader when the new Congress is sworn in in January.
"We need a conversation about leadership going forward because we need new energy and ideas," Blumenthal told reporters, according to News 12 in Connecticut.
People for Bernie called Blumenthal's remarks an "absolutely seismic shift in less than a week," following last week's elections in which the GOP was stunned by its losses to Democrats in states including Texas, South Carolina, and Kansas.
Progressives have emphasized that many winning candidates, even those who did not run as left-wing contenders, campaigned as adversaries to billionaires, corporations, and the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which counts Schumer as one of its top recipients of campaign cash—and rallied supporters with rhetoric popularized by progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), long dismissed by establishment Democrats as an extremist who was out of step with the party's base.
Despite those dynamics, Schumer has expressed confidence that he will remain as the party's leader in the Senate.
On Monday, he told CNN that Democrats' electoral victory was "about to become the largest landslide in the history of the Senate since the '50s, and now we're ready to roll up our sleeves, get to work, and lower costs for the American people.” He did not answer a question from reporter Morgan Rimmer about a possible challenge for the Senate majority leader post.
After Van Hollen said last week that Schumer must earn the support of his colleagues by putting forward a "bold agenda," a source close to the senator told Punchbowl News that he has "received an outpouring of calls" from voters who want him to challenge Schumer.
Van Hollen, said the source, "is now in active listening mode... The door is not shut."
Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett rejected the suggestion by some political observers that a challenger to the senior Democrat, who has been in office since 1999 and previously served in the US House of Representatives for nearly two decades, would never win the race to lead the party's new Senate majority.
"It’s possible the floodgates open if someone has the courage to step up," said Hackett.
Van Hollen won praise from progressive organizers last year when he swiftly traveled to El Salvador to demand the safe return of his constituent, Kilmar Ábrego García, whom the Trump administration had unlawfully deported to the Central American country. Criminal charges against the Maryland resident were thrown out by a federal judge in May, but the White House has continued pushing to deport Ábrego García to another country.
The senator has also been a vocal critic of the administration's blockade on Cuba and Israel's violent US-backed policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and forced a vote this year on ending President Donald Trump's illegal, unpopular war in Iran.
"Voters elected a majority to fight back. It should be led by someone who's been in the fight all along," said organizer Cheyenne Hunt.
With many establishment Democrats still reticent to vote against the interests of Israel, corporations, and Big Tech, Van Hollen would "have a caucus to deal with," said Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founder of Justice Democrats, "but having him in charge makes sure bills to continue sending money to Israel don’t get votes."
Blumenthal, a longtime defender of Israel, was the third sitting Senate Democrat, after Van Hollen and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who took office last year and has frequently called for a "new generation" of party leadership, to decline to endorse Schumer. Slotkin said Saturday she was considering a run.
Sens.-elect Adam Hamilton (D-Kan.), Annie Andrews (D-SC), James Talarico (D-Texas), Juliana Stratton (D-Ill.), and Troy Jackson (D-Maine) are among the incoming lawmakers who have declined to support the Democratic leader.
After the announcement by Blumenthal, who has served alongside Schumer since 2011, Cory Archibald of AIPAC Tracker said she was "starting to think Chuck might actually be done."
"Do it, Chris Van Hollen," said Archibald. "We need you. We need clear and moral leadership in the Senate. We need people who understand this moment and what it demands. Do it. We're with you."
Meanwhile, in the US House, a number of newly elected progressive representatives have refused to throw their support behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for speaker.
As Blumenthal broke with a majority of his colleagues on Schumer's bid, progressive strategist Deep Singh Badesha said, "I'm begging the House Democrats to also have this courage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy