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.
Congress must, at a minimum, make a concerted effort to block Trump from starting a war because we're in danger of foreclosing diplomacy with Iran for future presidents. (Photo: bakdc / Shutterstock.com)
On April 22, President Trump took to Twitter and threatened to attack Iran, instructing the Navy to "shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea." The tweet was both alarming and cringeworthy -- boats don't fly. But it was also commonplace. Trump has threatened to start a war with Iran so many times that it almost feels banal.
It would be a mistake to let Trump's threats toward Iran become normal. Taken together with his withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reimposition of debilitating sanctions, and attempts to kill the JCPOA once and for all, Trump's maximum pressure approach to Iran is deadly serious. Fortunately, a majority of Congress sees it that way, too.
Last week, Congress tried and came up short of enacting a War Powers Resolution (WPR) to block Trump's march to war with Iran. Unable to muster a two-thirds majority to override Trump's veto, some may be asking whether it's futile for Congress to keep legislating on this. But continued congressional action and oversight is crucial for an administration hell-bent on circumventing the constitution, pursuing regime change in Iran no matter the consequences for ordinary Iranians, and tying the hands of future presidents to limit their ability to change course.
The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way.
Congressional action matters for several reasons. First, it's a counterweight to Trump's supercharged anti-Iran bully pulpit. While starting a new war with Iran is unpopular--a University of Maryland poll found that 76 percent of Americans want to use tools short of war to confront Iran--Iran also remains deeply unpopular within the United States. That leaves room for Trump and his powerful Iran hawk backers to sway public opinion in favor of war. According to Gallup polling, from 2018 to 2020, the percentage of Americans who believe Iran represented the greatest threat to the United States jumped from seven to 19 percent.
Rightly understanding that the public is vulnerable to propaganda, Congress did the right thing by passing the WPR, even if they knew would be vetoed. As Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the measure's lead sponsor, explained of the bipartisan legislative push, "The president doesn't really care about Congress, but he does care deeply about voters... We think ...it will make the president realize just how unpopular a rush into another war would be."
Second, Congress must keep acting because the rule of law should still matter in the United States. Trump's increasingly successful efforts to turn this country into an autocracy isn't just affecting the Justice Department and Supreme Court, but also congressional powers. The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way. Yet in Trump's veto message, he arguably went the furthest he has ever gone to make the case that his war powers exceed those of Congress's, effectively claiming that the president is unrestrained in his ability to wage war. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, Congress has not done itself any favors to be in a position to reclaim its war powers, having long ceded much of its authority to the executive by failing to repeal the post-9/11 use of force authorization and the Iraq war authorization. With seven out of seven Trump vetoes being about congressional national security powers and two out of seven specifically about war authority, pushing forward with the war powers vote despite the threat of veto helps demonstrate that Congress is willing to fight for its prerogatives.
Finally, Congress must, at a minimum, make a concerted effort to block Trump from starting a war because we're in danger of foreclosing diplomacy with Iran for future presidents. As others have argued, whether it's trying to box in a future president (say, Biden) from removing devastating sanctions on Iran or seeking to create a crisis by triggering the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran regime change supporters are working to make diplomacy with Iran significantly more difficult should President Trump lose the next election. In addition, congressional support for diplomacy with Iran is decidedly mixed in the Trump era. A number of progressive Democrats signed a problematic letter that could be used by Iran hawks to undermine the JCPOA. Given this reality, Congress must be crystal clear that starting a war (as opposed to responding to Iranian aggression) is off the table. In so doing, it signals to moderate voices in Iran that not all of the United States is hostile and eager for conflict, and keeps some space open for a new president to restart good faith negotiations.
There should be little doubt that Trump will once again threaten Iran before the 2020 election. All threats should be met with the same seriousness that Congress has displayed thus far. In addition to the tools it has under the War Powers Act to bring expedited bills to the floor, the Democratic House majority has passed bills invoking its constitutionally-given power of the purse and repealing the Iraq War authorization to close off other avenues to war. As this Congress winds down and must-pass legislation moves to the floor, the bipartisan majority that has come together on this issue should not stop working to enact legislation to reclaim its war powers and block Trump from taking us to war with Iran.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
On April 22, President Trump took to Twitter and threatened to attack Iran, instructing the Navy to "shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea." The tweet was both alarming and cringeworthy -- boats don't fly. But it was also commonplace. Trump has threatened to start a war with Iran so many times that it almost feels banal.
It would be a mistake to let Trump's threats toward Iran become normal. Taken together with his withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reimposition of debilitating sanctions, and attempts to kill the JCPOA once and for all, Trump's maximum pressure approach to Iran is deadly serious. Fortunately, a majority of Congress sees it that way, too.
Last week, Congress tried and came up short of enacting a War Powers Resolution (WPR) to block Trump's march to war with Iran. Unable to muster a two-thirds majority to override Trump's veto, some may be asking whether it's futile for Congress to keep legislating on this. But continued congressional action and oversight is crucial for an administration hell-bent on circumventing the constitution, pursuing regime change in Iran no matter the consequences for ordinary Iranians, and tying the hands of future presidents to limit their ability to change course.
The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way.
Congressional action matters for several reasons. First, it's a counterweight to Trump's supercharged anti-Iran bully pulpit. While starting a new war with Iran is unpopular--a University of Maryland poll found that 76 percent of Americans want to use tools short of war to confront Iran--Iran also remains deeply unpopular within the United States. That leaves room for Trump and his powerful Iran hawk backers to sway public opinion in favor of war. According to Gallup polling, from 2018 to 2020, the percentage of Americans who believe Iran represented the greatest threat to the United States jumped from seven to 19 percent.
Rightly understanding that the public is vulnerable to propaganda, Congress did the right thing by passing the WPR, even if they knew would be vetoed. As Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the measure's lead sponsor, explained of the bipartisan legislative push, "The president doesn't really care about Congress, but he does care deeply about voters... We think ...it will make the president realize just how unpopular a rush into another war would be."
Second, Congress must keep acting because the rule of law should still matter in the United States. Trump's increasingly successful efforts to turn this country into an autocracy isn't just affecting the Justice Department and Supreme Court, but also congressional powers. The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way. Yet in Trump's veto message, he arguably went the furthest he has ever gone to make the case that his war powers exceed those of Congress's, effectively claiming that the president is unrestrained in his ability to wage war. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, Congress has not done itself any favors to be in a position to reclaim its war powers, having long ceded much of its authority to the executive by failing to repeal the post-9/11 use of force authorization and the Iraq war authorization. With seven out of seven Trump vetoes being about congressional national security powers and two out of seven specifically about war authority, pushing forward with the war powers vote despite the threat of veto helps demonstrate that Congress is willing to fight for its prerogatives.
Finally, Congress must, at a minimum, make a concerted effort to block Trump from starting a war because we're in danger of foreclosing diplomacy with Iran for future presidents. As others have argued, whether it's trying to box in a future president (say, Biden) from removing devastating sanctions on Iran or seeking to create a crisis by triggering the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran regime change supporters are working to make diplomacy with Iran significantly more difficult should President Trump lose the next election. In addition, congressional support for diplomacy with Iran is decidedly mixed in the Trump era. A number of progressive Democrats signed a problematic letter that could be used by Iran hawks to undermine the JCPOA. Given this reality, Congress must be crystal clear that starting a war (as opposed to responding to Iranian aggression) is off the table. In so doing, it signals to moderate voices in Iran that not all of the United States is hostile and eager for conflict, and keeps some space open for a new president to restart good faith negotiations.
There should be little doubt that Trump will once again threaten Iran before the 2020 election. All threats should be met with the same seriousness that Congress has displayed thus far. In addition to the tools it has under the War Powers Act to bring expedited bills to the floor, the Democratic House majority has passed bills invoking its constitutionally-given power of the purse and repealing the Iraq War authorization to close off other avenues to war. As this Congress winds down and must-pass legislation moves to the floor, the bipartisan majority that has come together on this issue should not stop working to enact legislation to reclaim its war powers and block Trump from taking us to war with Iran.
On April 22, President Trump took to Twitter and threatened to attack Iran, instructing the Navy to "shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea." The tweet was both alarming and cringeworthy -- boats don't fly. But it was also commonplace. Trump has threatened to start a war with Iran so many times that it almost feels banal.
It would be a mistake to let Trump's threats toward Iran become normal. Taken together with his withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reimposition of debilitating sanctions, and attempts to kill the JCPOA once and for all, Trump's maximum pressure approach to Iran is deadly serious. Fortunately, a majority of Congress sees it that way, too.
Last week, Congress tried and came up short of enacting a War Powers Resolution (WPR) to block Trump's march to war with Iran. Unable to muster a two-thirds majority to override Trump's veto, some may be asking whether it's futile for Congress to keep legislating on this. But continued congressional action and oversight is crucial for an administration hell-bent on circumventing the constitution, pursuing regime change in Iran no matter the consequences for ordinary Iranians, and tying the hands of future presidents to limit their ability to change course.
The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way.
Congressional action matters for several reasons. First, it's a counterweight to Trump's supercharged anti-Iran bully pulpit. While starting a new war with Iran is unpopular--a University of Maryland poll found that 76 percent of Americans want to use tools short of war to confront Iran--Iran also remains deeply unpopular within the United States. That leaves room for Trump and his powerful Iran hawk backers to sway public opinion in favor of war. According to Gallup polling, from 2018 to 2020, the percentage of Americans who believe Iran represented the greatest threat to the United States jumped from seven to 19 percent.
Rightly understanding that the public is vulnerable to propaganda, Congress did the right thing by passing the WPR, even if they knew would be vetoed. As Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the measure's lead sponsor, explained of the bipartisan legislative push, "The president doesn't really care about Congress, but he does care deeply about voters... We think ...it will make the president realize just how unpopular a rush into another war would be."
Second, Congress must keep acting because the rule of law should still matter in the United States. Trump's increasingly successful efforts to turn this country into an autocracy isn't just affecting the Justice Department and Supreme Court, but also congressional powers. The constitution exclusively grants Congress the power to decide whether to put U.S. servicemembers in harm's way. Yet in Trump's veto message, he arguably went the furthest he has ever gone to make the case that his war powers exceed those of Congress's, effectively claiming that the president is unrestrained in his ability to wage war. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, Congress has not done itself any favors to be in a position to reclaim its war powers, having long ceded much of its authority to the executive by failing to repeal the post-9/11 use of force authorization and the Iraq war authorization. With seven out of seven Trump vetoes being about congressional national security powers and two out of seven specifically about war authority, pushing forward with the war powers vote despite the threat of veto helps demonstrate that Congress is willing to fight for its prerogatives.
Finally, Congress must, at a minimum, make a concerted effort to block Trump from starting a war because we're in danger of foreclosing diplomacy with Iran for future presidents. As others have argued, whether it's trying to box in a future president (say, Biden) from removing devastating sanctions on Iran or seeking to create a crisis by triggering the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran regime change supporters are working to make diplomacy with Iran significantly more difficult should President Trump lose the next election. In addition, congressional support for diplomacy with Iran is decidedly mixed in the Trump era. A number of progressive Democrats signed a problematic letter that could be used by Iran hawks to undermine the JCPOA. Given this reality, Congress must be crystal clear that starting a war (as opposed to responding to Iranian aggression) is off the table. In so doing, it signals to moderate voices in Iran that not all of the United States is hostile and eager for conflict, and keeps some space open for a new president to restart good faith negotiations.
There should be little doubt that Trump will once again threaten Iran before the 2020 election. All threats should be met with the same seriousness that Congress has displayed thus far. In addition to the tools it has under the War Powers Act to bring expedited bills to the floor, the Democratic House majority has passed bills invoking its constitutionally-given power of the purse and repealing the Iraq War authorization to close off other avenues to war. As this Congress winds down and must-pass legislation moves to the floor, the bipartisan majority that has come together on this issue should not stop working to enact legislation to reclaim its war powers and block Trump from taking us to war with Iran.
"These are not abstract numbers," wrote National Education Association president Becky Pringle. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger."
The leader of the largest teachers union in the United States is sounding the alarm over the impact that President Donald Trump's newly enacted budget law will have on young students, specifically warning that massive cuts to federal nutrition assistance will intensify the nation's child hunger crisis.
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA)—which represents millions of educators across the U.S.—wrote for Time magazine earlier this week that "as families across America prepare for the new school year, millions of children face the threat of returning to classrooms without access to school meals" under the budget measure that Trump signed into law last month after it cleared the Republican-controlled Congress.
Estimates indicate that more than 18 million children nationwide could lose access to free school meals due to the law's unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, which are used to determine eligibility for free meals in most U.S. states.
The Trump-GOP budget law imposes more strict work-reporting requirements on SNAP recipients and expands the mandates to adults between the ages of 55 and 64 and parents with children aged 14 and older. The Congressional Budget Office said earlier this week that the more aggressive work requirements would kick millions of adults off SNAP over the next decade—with cascading effects for children and other family members who rely on the program.
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students."
Pringle wrote in her Time op-ed that "our children can't learn if they are hungry," adding that as a middle school science teacher she has seen first-hand "the pain that hunger creates."
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students," she wrote.
The NEA president warned that cuts from the Trump-GOP law "will hit hardest in places where families are already struggling the most, especially in rural and Southern states where school nutrition programs are a lifeline to many."
"In Texas, 3.4 million kids, nearly two-thirds of students, are eligible for free and reduced lunch," Pringle wrote. "In Mississippi, 439,000 kids, 99.7% of the student population, were eligible for free and reduced-cost lunch during the 2022-23 school year."
"These are not abstract numbers," she added. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger and uncertainty about when they will eat again. America's kids deserve better.
Pringle's op-ed came as school leaders, advocates, and lawmakers across the country braced for the impacts of Trump's budget law.
"We're going to see cuts to programs such as SNAP and Medicaid, resulting in domino effects for the children we serve," Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) said during a recent gathering of lawmakers and experts. "For many of our communities, these policies mean life or death."
In some cases, corporate groups have posed as small business owners besieged by rising crime rates.
U.S. President Donald Trump's military occupation of Washington, D.C. has been egged on for months by corporate lobbyists. In some cases, they have posed as small business owners besieged by rising crime rates.
According to a report Tuesday in The Lever:
Last February, the American Investment Council, private equity's $24 million lobbying shop, penned a letter to D.C. city leaders demanding "immediate action" to address an "alarming increase" in crime.
That letter was published as an exclusive by Axios with the headline: "Downtown D.C. Business Leaders Demand Crime Solutions."
But far from a group of beleaguered mom-and-pops, the letter's signatories "included some of the biggest trade groups on K Street," The Lever observed:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which boasts its status as the largest business organization in the world; the National Retail Federation, a powerful retail alliance representing giants like Walmart and Target; and Airlines for America, which represents the major U.S. airlines, among others. These lobbying juggernauts spend tens of millions of dollars every year lobbying federal lawmakers to get their way in Washington."
It was one of many efforts by right-wing groups to agitate for a more fearsome police crackdown in the city and oppose criminal justice reforms.
On multiple occasions, business groups and police unions have helped to thwart efforts by the D.C. city council to rewrite the city's criminal code, which has not been updated in over a century, to eliminate many mandatory minimum sentences and reduce sentences for some nonviolent offenses.
The reforms were vetoed by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in 2023. After the veto was overridden by the city council, Democrats helped Republicans pass a law squashing the reforms, which was signed by then-President Joe Biden.
In 2024, groups like the Chamber of Commerce pushed the "Secure D.C." bill in the city council, which expanded pre-trial detention, weakened restrictions on chokeholds, and limited public access to police disciplinary records.
At the time, business groups lauded these changes as necessary to fight the post-pandemic crime spike D.C. was experiencing.
But crime rates in D.C. have fallen precipitously, to a 30-year low over the course of 2024. As a press release from the U.S. attorney's office released on January 3, 2025 stated: "homicides are down 32%; robberies are down 39%; armed carjackings are down 53%; assaults with a dangerous weapon are down 27% when compared with 2023 levels."
Nevertheless, as Trump sends federal troops into D.C., many in the corporate world are still cheering.
In a statement Monday, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce described itself as a "strong supporter" of the Home Rule Act, which Trump used to enact his federal crackdown.
The Washington Business Journal quoted multiple consultancy executives—including Yaman Coskum, who exclaimed that "It is about time somebody did something to make D.C. great again," and Kirk McLaren who said, "If local leaders won't protect residents and businesses, let's see if the federal government will step in and do what's necessary to create a safe and prosperous city."
Despite crime also being on the decline in every other city he has singled out—Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland, New York, and Chicago—Trump has said his deployment of federal troops "will go further."
"California will now draw new, more 'beautiful maps,'" wrote Newsom's press office in a Trump-style social media post.
The office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday night revealed that the governor was going ahead with plans to redraw California's congressional map with the goal of counteracting Republicans' planned mid-decade gerrymander in Texas.
In a post on X, Newsom's press office made the announcement while openly parodying the social media posting style of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!!" the post began. "CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM—YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR—THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA.' THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!"
The announcement came less than two days after Newsom sent a letter to Trump warning the president that he was "playing with fire" by pushing Texas to draw a new map that independent analysts have estimated could net Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
At the time, Newsom also left open the possibility of backing off his threat to redraw California's map if Texas did likewise.
"If you will not stand down I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states," Newsom said. "But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it."
Newsom then informed Trump that he had until late Tuesday to respond to his letter before the California governor took action.
Before redrawing California's map, however, Newsom would have to undo his state's current redistricting process through a special ballot initiative this fall, as for years California's districts have been determined by an independent commission.
As the gerrymandering wars have escalated, pro-democracy watchdog Common Cause this week unveiled a new set of standards for any redistricting effort that includes measures such as using independent commissions and avoiding racial discrimination aimed at reducing the political power of minorities throughout the country.