Why a Feminist and Just Energy Transition Is the Only Way Out of the Climate Crisis

As we look toward Santa Marta, the message is both simple and profound: We cannot solve the climate crisis with the same logic that caused it.


Thousands of people take part in the so-called “Great People’s March” in the sidelines of the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belem, Para State, Brazil on November 15, 2025.
(Photo by Pablo Porciuncula/ AFP via Getty Images)

Theiva Lingam
Apr 21, 2026

Common Dreams


Wars, invasions, blockades, and genocide from Venezuela and Iran to Palestine have ripped the curtain off the inherent volatility and violence of the fossil energy system. We need a rapid and just scale-up of socially controlled renewables to end the era of fossil fuels. But ensuring a just transition requires deeper conversation. Who benefits from the energy transition? Who bears the cost? Who gets a say in how energy is produced? These are also feminist questions about power, labor, care, and whose lives are valued.

To answer them, grassroots leaders, Indigenous communities, trade unions, and environmental justice activists will gather in Santa Marta, Colombia for the Peoples’ Summit and First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels this week. For many of us in environmental and social justice movements, this gathering represents both urgency and possibility. This will be a critical space because, without justice, the energy transition will reproduce the same systems of extraction, control, and violence.

So We Must Ask: an Energy Transition for Whom?

The transition narrative sold by corporations and rich countries today tells us we can scale up corporate, market-led renewable energy technologies without questioning who controls them, who benefits, and who bears the cost. This risks the transition becoming nothing more than the old model in greener packaging. In Malaysia, for example, the energy transition policy largely rebrands the old growth-and-extraction model. It uses green rhetoric, prioritizing corporate-led false solutions like carbon capture and storage and carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Copying Western-style developments through corporate-driven trade and investment patterns sustains fossil fuel dependence and continues to entrench structural inequalities both nationally and internationally. Without systemic change, the transition becomes another chapter in a long history of resource plunder, particularly in the Global South.

Consider the surge in demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements. These are essential components of batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. Governments and corporations in the Global North are racing to secure these materials, often greenwashing extraction as necessary for climate action, while diverting these minerals into military, aerospace, AI, and data centers. For communities across Latin America, Africa, and Asia, this rush is already translating into land grabs, water depletion, labor exploitation, and violence. Lithium extraction threatens fragile ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples’ livelihoods; cobalt mining has been linked to dangerous working conditions and child labor. As with oil before them, critical minerals are becoming objects of geopolitical competition—backed by military power and strategic control.

If this transition is not rooted in justice, it will not be a solution. It will be the next phase of the crisis.

The military is among the world’s largest consumers of fossil fuels, yet its emissions are routinely excluded from national reporting. At the same time, states and corporations work together to secure control over oil, gas, and critical minerals—profiting from war and devastation from Lebanon to Venezuela and Cuba.

These are the very predictable outcomes of a system that prioritizes profit over energy as a right for people. A just transition must go far beyond emissions reductions. It must actively confront inequality, redistribute power, and wealth, and repair historical and ongoing harms. It must center those who have been marginalized and exploited—not as victims but as leaders.

A Just Transition Must Be Based on Peoples’ Sovereignty and Energy Sovereignty

At the heart of this vision are peoples’ sovereignty and energy sovereignty: the right of communities to control their lands, resources, and energy systems, and to shape the decisions that affect their lives. This means treating energy as a common good that is managed for collective well-being rather than private profit, while building energy democracy, where communities have real decision-making power over how energy is produced and used. It also requires energy sufficiency, prioritizing meeting people’s needs over excessive and wasteful energy use. Together, these principles challenge the concentration of power in corporations and wealthy countries, and point toward energy systems that are locally rooted, democratic, and aligned with social and ecological needs.

Achieving this also requires that we confront imperialism. The current global order allows wealthy countries to externalize the social and environmental costs of their consumption to the Global South, while maintaining control over finance, technology, and trade. This imbalance shapes the terms of the energy transition, devastating communities and often locking countries in the Global South into roles as raw material suppliers rather than equal partners.

Policies that ignore power dynamics may deliver short-term emissions reductions, but they will ultimately fail as communities resist exploitation and inequity deepens. A transition rooted in justice, however, can build the broad-based support needed for transformative change.

Around the world, communities are already practicing energy sovereignty, from managing decentralized renewable systems in Palestine to asserting their rights against extractive projects in Mozambique. Alternatives are not only possible, but underway.

A feminist and just energy transition must challenge the structures that perpetuate dependency and inequality, including unfair trade agreements, debt regimes, and corporate impunity. It must also recognize and address the intersecting forms of oppression based on gender, race, class, and colonial history that shape how the climate crisis is experienced and resisted.

As we look toward Santa Marta, the message is both simple and profound: We cannot solve the climate crisis with the same logic that caused it. If this transition is not rooted in justice, it will not be a solution. It will be the next phase of the crisis.

The path forward will require confronting entrenched interests and reimagining our economies and societies. From Santa Marta and beyond, communities are showing us the way. The task now is to listen, to act, and to ensure that the transition ahead is truly just—for people, for the planet, and for future generations.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Theiva Lingam is chair of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental federation. She is also a public interest lawyer, environmental activist, and legal adviser to Sahabat Alam Malaysia-Friends of the Earth Malaysia, as well as a legal consultant at Third World Network.
Full Bio >

NIXON'S ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Mike Johnson to Unleash ‘Catastrophic’ Attack on Endangered Species Act

“When wildlife is already under immense pressure from habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and industrial development, Congress should be strengthening the Endangered Species Act,” said one advocate.


A female northern spotted owl catches a mouse on a stick held by Mark Higley, wildlife biologist for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, on the Hoopa Valley Reservation on August 28, 2024.
(Photo by The Washington Post/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Apr 20, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Conservationists warned Monday that “Earth Day could become Extinction Day” if Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives get their way.

Elected Republicans have long set their sights on the historic Endangered Species Act of 1973—and wildfire defenders sounded the alarm in December, when the Republican-led House Natural Resources Committee advanced Chair Bruce Westerman’s (R-Ark.) ESA Amendments Act.



“If this bill passes, protections for species like the Florida manatee, monarch butterfly, and California spotted owl would immediately decrease,” Earthjustice legislative director for lands, wildlife, and oceans Addie Haughey warned at the time.

Since then, President Donald Trump has continued his war on endangered species with his budget request for the 2027 fiscal year, and his administration’s so-called “God Squad” unanimously approved an “unprecedented” exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore ESA protections.

Now, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plans to take up Westerman’s bill this week—potentially on Wednesday, Earth Day.

“At a time when wildlife is already under immense pressure from habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and industrial development, Congress should be strengthening the Endangered Species Act, not tearing it apart,” said Jewel Tomasula, policy director of the Endangered Species Coalition, which has hundreds of member organizations.

“If Rep. Bruce Westerman and Speaker Johnson have their way, Earth Day will become Extinction Day,” Tomasula warned. “The urgency is real. This bill is catastrophic for threatened and endangered species.”

Susan Holmes, the coalition’s executive director, emphasized that “the Endangered Species Act works because it is rooted in science and because it recognizes a simple truth: Once a species is gone, it is gone forever.”

“We should not allow politicians to dismantle protections that have saved bald eagles, gray whales, peregrine falcons, and so many other species from disappearing forever,” she declared.

Holmes also noted that “the American people overwhelmingly support the Endangered Species Act” and “understand that protecting wildlife is not a partisan issue. It is about responsibility, stewardship, and ensuring that future generations inherit a world still rich with wild species and wild places.”

Polling commissioned by IFAW and conducted online last year by Beekeeper Group found that over three-quarters of Americans say they are concerned about the environment, the welfare of animals, and conserving nature, and specifically support the goals of the ESA. That aligns with figures from surveys conducted over the past three decades, according to a 2025 analysis.

“Protecting the nation’s wildlife and habitats has never been an issue of right or left—it is a shared value and a commitment to future generations,” said Cassie Ferri, legislative analyst at Defenders of Wildlife, in a Monday statement. “Instead of honoring Earth Day, Congress is turning it into ‘Destroy Earth Day’ by attempting to dismantle one of our nation’s most foundational conservation laws. We all depend on healthy ecosystems to thrive, and the vast majority of Americans want to preserve wildlife through a strong Endangered Species Act—yet time and again Congress blatantly disregards their voices.”

The advocacy group director of legislative affairs, Mary Beth Beetham, said that “shameless attempts by some members of Congress to dismantle the Endangered Species Act demonstrate a profound disregard for how valuable this law is to wildlife conservation.”

“The Endangered Species Act isn’t just rhetoric—it’s proven effective and has safeguarded imperiled species for more than 50 years,” Beetham stressed. “This bill could be the driving force behind future extinctions and would set a dangerous precedent for wildlife legislation moving forward.”

Defenders of Wildlife is among nearly 300 groups that have signed on to a Monday letter—shared with Common Dreams by another signatory, Humane World for Animals—urging US House members to “vote NO on HR 1897, which is a damaging bill that would dramatically weaken the ESA and make it harder, if not impossible, to achieve the progress we must make to address the alarming rate of extinction our planet now faces.”

Westerman’s bill, the letter says, “would significantly rewrite key portions of the ESA to prioritize politics over science and inappropriately shift responsibility for key implementation decisions from the federal government to the states, many of which do not have sufficient resources or legal mechanisms in place to take the lead in conserving listed species.”

“It would place significant new administrative burdens on already overburdened agencies,” the letter continues. “It would turn the current process for listing and recovering threatened and endangered species into a far lengthier process that precludes judicial review of key decisions.”

While Republicans can pass legislation along party lines in the House, they usually need at least some Democratic support in the Senate—due to chamber rules, which can be changed—to send a bill to Trump’s desk.

As Trump Threatens Iran, Veterans Arrested Protesting ‘War Machine’ at US Capitol

“Continuing to help the war machine will only cause you more pain. There has never been a better time to reject those orders, and join a fight that matters.”


Veterans, military family members, and supporters are detained by US Capitol Police officers during an demonstration calling upon the Trump administration to end the war on Iran on April 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for About Face: Veterans Against The War)

Brad Reed
Apr 20, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

Dozens of veterans were arrested by US Capitol Police on Monday after they occupied the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill to protest President Donald Trump’s illegal war on Iran.

During the protest, which was organized by a coalition of veterans groups, the demonstrators stood in the middle of the rotunda, holding red tulips and chanting anti-war slogans.

A video published by Reuters shows Capitol Police restraining the veterans and taking them into custody one by one.



One of the demonstrators arrested was Mike Prysner, executive director of the Center on Conscience and War (CCW) and a veteran of the 2003 Iraq War, who encouraged members of the US military to become conscientious objectors in a statement released ahead of the demonstration.

“The war I was sent to senselessly claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and a million Iraqis,” said Prysner. “Like the other veterans here with me today, I have spent the last two decades wishing I could turn back the hands of time and refuse to go. Service members have that chance right now.”

Prysner then informed US service members that “conscientious objection is your legal right, and we have professional counselors who will fight to ensure you are approved and kept from deployment.”

Tyler Romero, conscientious objector client for CCW, said that he “decided to get arrested today because as someone who was a participant in a war machine that is responsible for untold suffering around the world, it is my duty to help put an end to it.”

Like Prysner, Romero also encouraged service members to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

“My advice to troops still serving is this,” he said, “This is the most important historical moment of our lifetime, and what you choose to do matters. I can tell you from experience that continuing to help the war machine will only cause you more pain. There has never been a better time to reject those orders, and join a fight that matters.”

Trump over the weekend renewed his threats to commit war crimes by bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants, unless Iran agreed to a deal to give up its uranium enrichment capabilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“If they don’t sign the deal, then the whole country is going to get blown up,” Trump said.

Gaza Needs $71.4 Billion for Recovery as Genocide Sets Development Back 77 Years

Only a tiny fraction of the already inadequate $17 billion pledged for Gaza reconstruction via US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” has reportedly been received.


An aerial view shows Palestinians walking through the ruins of destroyed buildings in the Jabalia refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip, on February 5, 2025.
(Photo by Khalil Ramzi Alkahlut/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Apr 20, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A joint assessment published Monday by the European Union, United Nations, and World Bank found that an estimated $71.4 billion is needed over the next decade for recovery and reconstruction in the Gaza Strip, where 30 months of Israeli genocide has set human development back by an entire lifetime.

The Gaza Strip Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) states that the $71.4 billion figure includes an estimated $26.3 billion required over the next 18 months “to restore essential service, rebuild critical infrastructure, and support economic recovery.”




With Congress Back in DC, Sanders Plans Another Vote on Blocking US Weapons to Israel Over Genocide



With Aid Blocked and ‘At Least 2 Children a Day’ Killed or Maimed, NGOs Say Trump’s Gaza Ceasefire Is Failing

“Physical infrastructure damages are estimated at $35.2 billion, with economic and social losses amounting to $22.7 billion,” the report continues. “The hardest-hit sectors include housing, health, education, commerce, and agriculture. Over 371,888 housing units have been destroyed or damaged, more than 50% of hospitals are nonfunctional, nearly all schools destroyed or damaged, and the economy has contracted by 84% in Gaza.”

“Catastrophic impact on human development across Gaza... is estimated to have been set back by 77 years,” the RDNA states. “Around 1.9 million people have been displaced, often multiple times, and more than 60% of the population has lost their homes.”

“Women, children, persons with disabilities, and those with preexisting vulnerabilities bear the greatest burden,” the publication adds.

The new analysis follows a November 2025 UN Conference on Trade and Development report that found Israel’s assault on Gaza has caused “the most severe economic crisis ever recorded.”

The Israeli war has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing; the strip in ruins; and most of its approximately 2 million people forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.

“Over two years of conflict has resulted in more than 71,000 Palestinian fatalities and over 171,000 injured, and many are missing under the rubble,” the report notes.

With the vast majority of Gaza’s buildings damaged or destroyed, separate UN analyses have estimated that it could take as many as 80 years to rebuild the obliterated coastal exclave.

So far, roughly $17 billion in pledged funding has been announced through the so-called “Board of Peace” launched by US President Donald Trump, whose ideas for rebuilding Gaza have included kicking Palestinians out and turning the strip into what he called the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Only a “tiny fraction” of that already inadequate $17 billion has been received, Reuters reported earlier this month.

Trump Invokes Wartime Law to Fulfill ‘Wish List for Oil, Gas, and Coal Industries’

“Trump is abusing emergency authorities and wasting taxpayer resources through unprecedented abuse of the Defense Production Act to promote his politically favored fossil fuel projects.”

THE THREE STOOGES

US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and President Donald Trump appear at an event in Washington, DC on March 4, 2026.
(Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Apr 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


US President Donald Trump on Monday invoked wartime authority in an effort to boost domestic fossil fuel production—with the help of taxpayer funding—as his administration faces growing political backlash over gas price spikes, driven by the illegal assault on Iran.

The five presidential memos Trump signed cite his executive powers under the Cold War-era Defense Production Act, which gives the president the ability to expand and accelerate production of key supplies. Critics accused Trump of abusing his emergency authority, once again, to give handouts to an industry profiting massively from the Iran war, which the president launched without congressional authorization.


Windfall Tax on Big Oil Demanded as Trump’s Iran War Pads Profits of Fossil Fuel Giants


‘Opportunistic’ Fossil Fuel Execs Cashed In on Trump’s Iran War With Record Stock Sales

“President Trump is abusing emergency authorities and wasting taxpayer resources through unprecedented abuse of the Defense Production Act to promote his politically favored fossil fuel projects at the expense of energy affordability and common sense,” said Tyson Slocum, energy director at the consumer watchdog Public Citizen. “Today’s unjustified suite of executive orders is a wish list for the oil, gas, and coal industries, who are already enjoying record profits under Trump’s Energy Unaffordability Agenda.”

“America is already—far and away—the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and the world’s largest petroleum and gas exporter,” Slocum added. “Promoting more fossil fuel exports at a time when Trump has failed to deliver affordable, sustainable energy for American communities is just another example of the president’s incompetent, failed energy policies.”

Trump’s memos aim to bolster petroleum, coal, and liquefied natural gas production, asserting that the nation’s “current inadequate and intermittent energy supply leaves us vulnerable to hostile foreign actors and poses an imminent and growing threat to the United States’ prosperity and national security.”

“Action to expand the domestic petroleum production, refining, and logistics capacity is necessary to avert an industrial resource or critical technology item shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability,” the memos state.

Trump signed the directives hours after he publicly disagreed with his own energy secretary’s assessment of when Americans can expect to see relief at the gas pump, where they’re paying over $4 per gallon on average nationwide. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Americans might not see significantly lower gas prices until next year; Trump claimed that assessment was “totally wrong,” even as economists warned of lasting impacts to US and global energy markets stemming from the Iran war.

The world’s largest oil and gas giants have profited massively from war-induced price spikes, with the biggest beneficiaries—including US-based Chevron and ExxonMobil—banking over $30 million an hour in windfall gains during the first month of the conflict.

Trump’s memos came days after a group of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation aimed at shielding fossil fuel companies from legal action to hold them accountable for their central role in the climate emergency.

“Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made,” Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in response to the bill. “If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong, why do they need immunity?”

Parents of Iranian Kids Killed by US School Bombing Thank Pope Leo for Speaking Out Against War

“We write this letter to you with trembling hands and a heart full of pain, from amidst the ashes and ruins of the schools of the city of Minab.”


In this picture obtained from Iran’s ISNA news agency, mourners attend the funeral of children killed in a US strike on an elementary school in Minab, Iran on March 3, 2026.
(Photo by Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Apr 20, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

Parents of children killed in the US bombing of an elementary school in southern Iran released a letter on Sunday applauding Pope Leo XIV for speaking out against war and urging him to “continue to be the voice of the voiceless children.”

“We write this letter to you with trembling hands and a heart full of pain, from amidst the ashes and ruins of the schools of the city of Minab,” reads the letter, first reported by Iran’s PressTV. “We are the fathers and mothers of 168 children who, these days, instead of embracing the warm bodies of our children, press their burned bags and bloody notebooks to our chests; innocent children whose only crime was smiling in the classroom, but this crime, through the instigation and support of illogical warmongers, crashed down upon the heads of our innocent children.”

More than 100 children were killed in the February 28 strike on Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, along with teachers and parents. Preliminary findings from the Pentagon indicate that the US was responsible for the strike, though the Trump administration has not formally admitted fault or apologized for the deadly attack, which came on the first day of the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Human rights groups have said the bombing should be investigated as a war crime.

In recent weeks, Trump administration officials and US President Donald Trump himself have lashed out at Pope Leo for condemning the Iran war and the president’s genocidal threat to wipe out Iranian civilization, which the pope called “truly unacceptable.”

The pontiff has not backed down, saying last week that he “will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems.”

In their letter on Sunday, the parents of children killed in the Minab school bombing wrote to Pope Leo that “you, with an aching heart and a divine perspective, warned the awakened consciences of the world that ‘hate is increasing, violence is worsening, and many have lost their lives.’”

“Today, the empty chairs of the classrooms in Minab are bitter testaments to this very truth; a truth brought about by the making of American bombs directed by illogical warmongers,” they continued. “We thank you that amidst the tumult of war, you became the voice of righteousness and reminded everyone that lasting peace and tranquility are achieved ‘not through force and weapons, but through the path of dialogue and the genuine search for a solution for all.’”



The letter came as Trump issued fresh threats to indiscriminately bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure, further endangering a fragile ceasefire and the prospect of a lasting diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

According to Iranian authorities, the US-Israeli war has killed more than 3,300 people in Iran—including hundreds of children. Abbas Masjedi, the head of the Iranian Legal Medicine Organization, told PressTV that 40% of the bodies of Iranian victims were “initially unidentifiable due to the type of bombs and missiles” used by the US and Israeli militaries.

Relief From Trump Tariff Pain Coming for Corporations—But Not Consumers Harmed by High Prices

“Big businesses that get refunds need to get the money back to their customers; ‘everyday low prices’ is not the way to do it,” said US Sen. Ed Markey.


A shopper reviews her receipt after shopping at a Florida Publix supermarket on February 3, 2026.
(Photo by Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Apr 20, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The Trump administration on Monday launched a portal designed to facilitate refunds on around $166 billion taken in from tariffs that the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional earlier this year.

But only businesses that directly paid President Donald Trump’s sweeping import taxes are eligible for relief—not the millions of Americans who paid higher prices as a result of the illegal tariffs. As The New York Times observed, “The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do.”

US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement Monday that big corporations that passed tariff costs onto consumers are set to “benefit the most” from the Trump administration’s refund system, given that they are better-equipped to deal with the complicated application process and potential issues with the newly created portal.

Markey faulted the administration for its “shortsighted decision to not issue automatic refunds,” instead choosing a convoluted application system that’s expected to face issues due to massive demand. The Associated Press noted that “companies must submit declarations listing the goods on which they collectively put billions of dollars toward the import taxes the court subsequently struck down.”

“If [Customs and Border Protection] approves a claim, it will take 60 to 90 days for a refund to be issued,” the outlet observed. “The government expects to process refunds in phases, however, focusing first on more recent tariff payments. Any number of technical factors and procedural issues could delay an importer’s application, so any reimbursements businesses plan to make to customers likely would trickle down slowly.”

“Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses.”

Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimated that, prior to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in February, Trump’s tariffs had cost US families over $1,700 each. Overall, American consumers paid more than $231 billion in tariff costs from February 2025 to January 2026, according to the JEC.

Markey said Monday that “American small businesses and families deserve to get their money back with interest.”

“Big businesses that get refunds need to get the money back to their customers; ‘everyday low prices’ is not the way to do it,” the senator said. “There must be no further delay or complicated hoops to jump through. CBP must ensure quick and easy refunds without further documentation. Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses who paid them rather than waiting around for a rebate that may never come.”

Unlikely to receive relief from the Trump administration, some consumers harmed by tariffs are taking legal action against corporations that jacked up prices.

The American Prospect reported Monday that “while companies are pursuing tariff refunds and the Trump administration is levying new global tariffs to replace what was struck down, some consumers are filing their own lawsuits seeking relief for higher prices paid because of tariffs.”

“Lawsuits have been filed against at least five corporations that plaintiffs say raised prices to pay for tariffs—costs set to be refunded to companies,” the Prospect noted. “The proposed class action suits target Costco, EssilorLuxottica (the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses), activewear company Fabletics, UPS, and FedEx.”

Report on State of US Libraries Exposes Trump Attacks and Record-Breaking Book Ban Efforts

Book bans “were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities,” said an American Library Association leader.


Two young girls lay on the floor of a library reading a book
(Photo by Jessica Mielke/Cavan Images/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Apr 20, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

“The State of America’s Libraries” report “is in a very real way a report on the state of our nation,” American Library Association executive director Dan Montgomery wrote in the introduction of the annual publication, released Monday.

“Unsurprisingly, then, there is much to be deeply concerned about in these pages, and much to bring hope,” the ALA leader acknowledged. “Ultimately, this report can serve as a clarion call to those who love libraries and our republic.”

Published at the beginning of National Library Week, the report explores a range of topics, including threats to intellectual freedom. ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) found that last year at least 4,235 unique titles were challenged—the association’s term for an attempt to have a resource removed or restricted—the second-highest ever documented, just short of 2023’s record.

OIF also found that at least 5,668 books were banned from libraries—66% of those challenged—and 920 books faced restrictions such as relocation or a parental permission requirement. The ALA noted that “this is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship” dating back to 1990.

“In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts,” explained Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the OIF, in a statement. “They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities.”

Specifically, OIF found that 92% of all book censorship efforts were initiated by “pressure groups, government officials, and decision-makers,” and fewer than 3% came from individual parents. Additionally, 40% of the unique titles challenged last year—1,671 works—were about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and people of color.

“Libraries exist to make space for every story and every lived experience,” stressed ALA president Sam Helmick. “As we celebrate National Library Week, we reaffirm that libraries are places for knowledge, for access, and for all.”

The most-targeted titles in 2025 were:

1. Sold by Patricia McCormick

2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

3. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe

4. Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas

5. (tie) Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo

5. (tie) Tricks by Ellen Hopkins

7. A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas

8. (tie) A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

8. (tie) Identical by Ellen Hopkins

8. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green

8. (tie) Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout

The ALA publication also features sections on library services for people who are incarcerated or in reentry, how libraries can “approach literacy in a community-driven, responsive way to meet today’s rapidly evolving and growing literacy needs,” and “intensified debates over access to information and shifting fiscal priorities.”

The report highlights ALA’s Show Up For Our Libraries campaign, launched in the face of attacks from Republican President Donald Trump—who has issued executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to effectively dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He also fired the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, and the register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter.



While the report sounds the alarm on the state of US libraries—and the nation more broadly—it also emphasizes, as Lamdan wrote in one section, that “the story of library censorship in 2025 is... not only about the challenges libraries faced, but also about the resilience of the people who stood up for them.”

“Legal victories and new state-level protections emerged in several regions, reinforcing longstanding principles of intellectual freedom and reaffirming libraries’ role as institutions that serve all members of their communities,” she noted. “Coalitions of library workers, authors, educators, and community members successfully advocated for right to read laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island that protect intellectual freedom, libraries, and library workers.”

“Courts across the nation held that censorship legislation was unconstitutional,” Lamdan continued. “Judges declared that laws including Florida’s HB 1069 and Iowa’s SF 496, which provide for the removal of books containing certain viewpoints, were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Courts also affirmed the First Amendment right to read in libraries. Voters in states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas rejected censorship-focused school and library board candidates, electing board members who promised to protect people’s right to read and learn.”

She added that “2025 was also a year of coalition-building. Grassroots activists, advocacy organizations, writers, authors, publishers, teachers, parents, and library workers came together to celebrate libraries and the joy of reading.”

The report was released less than three months ahead of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.

“As we look toward the next 250 years, the choice is ours,” said Helmick. “We can let our libraries fade, viewed as charming relics of a bygone era. Or, we can choose to invest in them as a bedrock of our future. Let us decide, right now, that they are not optional. They are the very breath of a free society, and they are worth fighting for.”

CIVIL RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

Thoughts on the Anniversary of ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’

Comparing the religious rhetoric and call to civic virtue of Martin Luther King, Jr. to the vile language and deeds of morally corrupt individuals as Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Pete Hegseth.


Profile view of American Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (1929 - 1968) as he speaks from a lecturn at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, Washington DC, February 6, 1968. 
(Photo by Joseph Klipple/Getty Images)

Jeffrey C. Isaac
Apr 20, 2026

Common Dreams


Today is the 63rd anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s release from the Birmingham, Alabama jail in which he penned his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

The “Letter,” a response to eight White moderate clergyman who publicly called on King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference to stop its desegregation campaign in the name of “law and order and common sense,” is one of the most widely discussed texts in US history. Most of the discussion has focused, rightly, on the way King carefully and respectfully outlines a justification and strategy of non-violent civil disobedience, to be undertaken when attempts to redress grievances are repeatedly ignored; after careful preparation; and in the name of a higher law. While scholars continue to discuss and debate the nuances of King’s text, the force of his arguments, and their general applicability, there can be no doubt that both the “Letter” and the Birmingham campaign that the “Letter” explains and justifies have informed subsequent generations of protest in the US and the world at large.

At a time when the Trump administration is making war on “domestic enemies” and continuing a campaign of terror against undocumented immigrants and anyone suspected of being “an illegal,” and when citizens have resisted these efforts in the streets of major American cities--most notably in Minneapolis this past January—both King’s example, and his “Letter,” justifiably loom large in public discussion. And while the citizens of Minneapolis surely did not literally follow King’s the letter of King’s “Letter,” their extraordinary and successful campaign of resistance to ICE was surely in the spirit of King’s text and his example.

To read King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is to be reminded of just how low our public life has fallen in the age of Trump...

As I reflect today on the “Letter,” however, I want to focus on a different dimension of the “Letter”: the way King--a holder of a doctorate in theology, a Black Baptist Minister, and the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—carefully braided together religious and secular rhetoric to make the case for a more inclusive democracy, invoking a range of exemplary religious figures and texts while deliberately using language that was itself manifestly inclusive. Many scholars have written about this. At the same time, I think it bears special emphasis given the way that the Trump administration, in ways large and small, hidden and public, is now promoting, with a vengeance, what can only be described as a form of militant Christian nationalism.

The New York Times reports that “Trump’s Planning of America’s 250th Suggests a Religious Focus.” Columnist Ja’han Jones, writing for MS Now, goes further, observing that “Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary,” continuing: “Let there be no doubt. The president is using the milestone celebration to promote far-right evangelism and Trump-centric Christianity.”

In the same vein, Politico reports on the administration’s Easter enthusiasm:
several key Cabinet departments [were] heralding Christ’s resurrection on their official social media accounts. “He is risen,” declared the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. The Defense Department shared a post on X from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: “The tomb is empty. The promise is fulfilled. Through His sacrifice, we are redeemed. We stand firm in faith, courage, and truth.” The Justice Department also chimed in on X:“Today, as millions of Christians gather in their churches across the nation to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, this Department—is proud to defend religious liberty.”

Most disturbing has been the way the Trump administration has very publicly treated its war on Iran as a Christian holy war. Trump did this indirectly when he declared, on Good Friday, that:
As we rejoice in this Easter season, we are reminded that the life of Jesus Christ and the truths of the Gospel have inspired our way of life and our national identity for 250 years. From the Christian patriots who won and secured our liberty on the battlefield and every generation since, the love of Christ has unfailingly guided our Nation through calm waters and dark storms. . . . We acknowledge that, through Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, in the words of Holy Scripture, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Above all, we echo with tremendous joy those sacred words that have given life, hope, and purpose to Christians for thousands of years: He is risen.

Hegseth has been more emphatically bellicose, especially in this much discussed, bone-chilling prayer offered at a recent Pentagon worship service:
Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.

The administration has been so resolutely Manichean and indeed bloodthirsty in its war rhetoric—with Trump going as far as to threaten the literal annihilation of not simply Iran but Iranian civilization itself—that Pope Leo XIV has felt obliged to publicly weigh in to call it to account. As Trump and his supine protégé JD Vance have responded with a combination of vituperation and arrogance, Leo has become more sharply critical even as he has continued to speak with great nuance. Trump’s Social Truth post representing himself as Jesus Christ, and the widespread charges of “blasphemy” that have followed, are simply surface expressions of the much deeper and more dangerous fact that the Trump administration is acting with utter contempt for any moral or political limits, and doing so by presenting itself as the veritable agent of a Christian holy war against the forces of the anti-Christ.

At a moment when such morally corrupt individuals as Trump, Vance, and Hegseth present themselves as agents of both religious virtue and “American Greatness,” King’s “Letter” exemplifies the way that serious moral and religious commitment can elevate democratic politics.

Beginning his “Letter” by immediately addressing the claim of his religious critics that he is an “outsider,” King makes no bones about his own religious connections and convictions. He points out that as President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he has come to Birmingham at the invitation of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. He then goes further, situating himself openly in a long tradition of Christian dissent:
I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century b.c. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

But he then quickly shifts to the third and more general reason for his presence, articulating what are the most famous sentences of the “Letter”:
I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

From the start, then, King articulates a pluralistic sense of his own identity, as the leader of a specific Christian movement, as a Christian, and as a citizen of the US and indeed of the world.

The entire “Letter” draws its force from King’s consistent and persistent performance of a rhetorical and political pluralism. When rebutting the charge that he is an “extremist,” he begins, famously, by asking “was not Jesus an extremist for love”—and it is relevant that he speaks here of “Jesus” the man, and not “Christ,” not because he abjures the language of “Christ,” but because he wishes to strike an ecumenical tone, and to call attention to a kind of courage to which any good man can aspire. King then continues, in the same paragraph and in the same vein, to list the others with whom he identifies: Amos, Paul, Martin Luther, Paul Bunyan, Lincoln, Jefferson, three of whom are quite obviously not “Christian” at all.

When explaining his distinction between a just and an unjust law, he writes that “a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” and then explains by citing Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Paul Tillich, “the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber,” and the language of the Brown v. Board decision itself.

When recalling heroic dissidents of the past, he names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Daniel, the early Christians, Socrates, and the rebels behind the Boston Tea Party.

Every move King makes in the first half of the “Letter” is deliberately ecumenical, drawing on a plurality of religious sources, Biblical and theological, and a variety of secular sources, from Socrates to the American revolutionaries to Lincoln.

When King then shifts into a more direct critique of the church, he explicitly includes “white ministers, priests, and rabbis.” And when he makes clear his own deep personal Christian faith, charity, and love, he immediately shifts into a more general tone:
In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

What then follows is a long critique of the church for its forgetfulness of a “God intoxication” that demands a concern for justice, concluding that “the judgment of God is upon the church as never before.” But even here, King refuses the rhetoric of jeremiad, opting instead for the words of hopeful persuasion with which he concludes:
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

In his “Letter” King performs a sincere and serious religious commitment—a Christian, Baptist religious commitment, which he completely owns—while simultaneously performing a commitment to religious pluralism, democratic citizenship, and human rights. He ends with the hope of one day meeting his interlocutors “as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother” because he is a clergyman and a Christian, who is directly engaging other religious leaders, each of whom leads a different community in a distinct way, and each of whom can be regarded as a kind of “brother.” He does not limit this hope to only Christians. He makes no reference here to Christ or the crucifixion or the resurrection or the end of days or God’s harsh judgment. King speaks not in the language of Holy War or Crusade. He speaks in the language of brotherhood, fraternity, commonality, and citizenship.

And indeed, while speaking in the language of universalism and ecumenicism, King also very deliberately, and emphatically, invokes a distinctly American political tradition of freedom, articulating this political vision:
One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Unlike Trump and Hegseth, who wrap their unaccountable rhetorical and deadly violence in a cloak of evangelical Christian righteousness, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote these, his most famous words, from a jail cell, while placing his life on the line in the name of a real commitment to freedom and justice. It is impossible to separate out King’s exemplary political courage from his profound Christian convictions, which he shared with his SCLC colleagues, even as he marched and collaborated with many who did not share these convictions. King makes his Christian faith clear. But he makes equally clear that in a democratic society, or at least a society professing democratic values, it is both possible and necessary for people of good will from a variety of religious, cultural, and moral places to reach toward an overlapping and common commitment to equal dignity, justice, and citizenship.

To read King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” is to be reminded of just how low our public life has fallen in the age of Trump, and how corrupt, venal, and dangerous is the rhetoric of religious fundamentalism when deployed by cynical autocrats intent on targeting and destroying “enemies.” But it is also to be reminded that words can elevate as well as denigrate, and that true moral conviction, whatever its cultural or religious grounding, can make a real difference in promoting a better, more just and more democratic world.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeffrey C. Isaac is James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. His books include: "Democracy in Dark Times"(1998); "The Poverty of Progressivism: The Future of American Democracy in a Time of Liberal Decline" (2003), and "Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion" (1994).
Full Bio >

US-Iran Diplomacy Is Entrenching Crisis, Not Ending It

The failure of talks in Pakistan does not simply close a diplomatic episode. It clarifies the limits of what current diplomacy can realistically achieve.



KUSHNER WITKOFF REALITY BROS INC.

Jared Kushner, left, and Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy for Peace Missions listen as Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran, April 12, 2026 in Islamabad, Pakistan.
(Photo by Jacquelyn Martin - Pool/Getty Images)

Elkhan Nuriyev
Apr 20, 2026

Common Dreams

The breakdown of recent US–Iran contacts in Pakistan does not represent an isolated diplomatic setback. It reflects something more structural: a relationship that is no longer moving toward resolution but instead stabilizing into a long-term cycle of managed confrontation.

In this emerging pattern, diplomacy has not disappeared, but its function has changed. It is no longer a pathway toward agreement; it has become part of the mechanism through which escalation is contained, calibrated, and periodically reset—without addressing the underlying conflict.

Recent signals that indirect contacts may still be continuing are not evidence of progress. Rather, they confirm the new logic of the relationship: diplomacy and coercion now operate in parallel. Negotiations persist, but without a shared framework, agreed end state, or credible roadmap toward settlement.

Diplomacy without resolution

Over the past several years, US-Iran engagement has increasingly shifted away from structured bargaining toward fragmented, episodic communication. The assumption that talks naturally lead toward de-escalation no longer holds.

Instead, both sides now use diplomacy tactically. It serves to manage risk, test boundaries, and signal restraint—while broader strategic competition continues uninterrupted.

This produces a paradox: dialogue continues, but trust erodes; engagement persists, but outcomes remain absent; communication expands, but political distance grows.

The breakdown of expectations following recent regional escalation and fragile ceasefire dynamics underscores this shift. The relationship is no longer oriented toward solving problems, but toward preventing them from spiraling out of control.

A fundamental strategic mismatch

At the core of this stalemate is not a failure of communication, but a deeper mismatch in strategic logic. The United States continues to approach diplomacy as an extension of pressure. Sanctions, military signaling, and containment strategies are intended to extract concessions on nuclear activity, regional influence, and security behavior. Iran, meanwhile, treats negotiations as a test of endurance and strategic recognition. It seeks economic relief and political acknowledgment of its regional position without fundamentally altering its core security doctrine.

These positions are not complementary. They are structurally incompatible. One side seeks behavioral change through pressure; the other seeks survival and recognition under pressure. As a result, negotiations do not converge toward compromise. They remain trapped within a constrained space of managed disagreement.

A region adapting to permanent instability

This dynamic is not confined to Washington and Tehran. It is reshaping the wider regional environment.

Pakistan’s role as a venue for indirect contacts highlights the growing importance of intermediary states attempting to contain escalation, even when their influence over outcomes is limited.

Turkey continues to balance mediation with strategic autonomy, engaging multiple actors while avoiding fixed alignment.

Russia benefits from prolonged US-Iran tensions, which divert Western attention and reinforce Moscow’s positioning as a partner for Tehran.

China prioritizes energy security and stability. It seeks to prevent open conflict but remains reluctant to assume a direct security role in the Gulf.

The combined effect is a fragmented regional order in which external actors are not neutral observers, but participants in managing—and at times exploiting—persistent instability.

Iran under layered pressure

Iran’s current strategic environment is shaped by three overlapping pressures: military, economic, and domestic.

Militarily, the likelihood of full-scale war remains relatively low. More plausible is a pattern of calibrated escalation—limited strikes, maritime tensions, cyber operations, and proxy activity.

Any sustained attempt to restrict Iranian-linked activity near critical maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz would mark a qualitative shift toward structural escalation, increasing long-term regional risk.

Iran, in turn, is unlikely to respond symmetrically. Its strategy relies on asymmetric tools: disruption of shipping, cyber capabilities, and the activation of regional networks. This produces a form of conflict that is continuous, dispersed, and difficult to resolve decisively.

Economically, the breakdown of talks reinforces Iran’s continued exclusion from the global financial system. Over time, sanctions have not only constrained Iran’s economy—they have reshaped it. Parallel trade networks, non-Western partnerships—particularly with Russia and China—and informal mechanisms have become structural features rather than temporary workarounds.

This reduces incentives for rapid compromise and increases the cost of reintegration into Western-led systems.

Domestically, sustained external pressure interacts with existing internal challenges. While external confrontation can temporarily reinforce political cohesion, it also intensifies long-term tensions between state capacity, economic performance, and public expectations.

The result is not collapse, but persistent strain.

The logic of strategic endurance

Taken together, these dynamics point toward a strategy best described as strategic endurance.

Iran’s likely trajectory is not decisive breakthrough or breakdown, but sustained resistance under pressure—preserving core capabilities, maintaining regional leverage, and keeping limited diplomatic channels open without major concessions.

This is not a strategy designed to resolve the conflict. It is a strategy designed to survive it.

The narrowing policy horizon in Washington

For the United States, the collapse of diplomatic momentum reinforces an increasingly familiar policy response: expanded sanctions, renewed military signaling, and limited tactical strikes against proxy-linked targets.

But the effectiveness of this approach is diminishing. Pressure without a credible political horizon tends to produce adaptation rather than compliance. It hardens positions, deepens fragmentation, and reduces the likelihood of negotiated outcomes over time.

What remains is a narrowing strategic space in which policy tools are still available, but less capable of producing meaningful change.

A durable cycle of confrontation

The most likely near-term trajectory is neither war nor resolution, but a prolonged cycle of managed confrontation.

This cycle will be characterized by intermittent escalation, partial and indirect diplomacy, and growing involvement of external actors attempting to prevent wider spillover.

Such an equilibrium may appear stable in the short term. Its danger lies in its durability. Conflicts that become structurally managed rather than resolved tend not to end through negotiation, but through accumulated crises that eventually exceed the system’s capacity to contain them.

The failure of talks in Pakistan does not simply close a diplomatic episode. It clarifies the limits of what current diplomacy can realistically achieve.

Unless the underlying strategic mismatch is addressed, US-Iran relations are likely to remain trapped in a pattern where escalation is managed, but resolution is continually deferred—at increasing cost to regional stability and global security.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Elkhan Nuriyev is a former Fulbright Scholar at The George Washington University and has held senior positions at leading think tanks and research institutions in the United States and Europe. He is a senior fellow with the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Berlin and a global energy associate at the Brussels Energy Club, and serves as a senior expert at LM Political Risk and Strategy Advisory in Vienna.
Full Bio >

Iran’s 10-Point Plan Is Still a Workable Basis for Negotiations

How long must the US war on Iran go on, and how badly must the US be defeated, before it will agree to a permanent peace?


Security personnel stand guard at a security checkpost along a road temporarily closed near the Serena Hotel at the Red Zone area in Islamabad on April 20, 2026, ahead of US-Iran peace talks.
(Photo by Aamir Qureshi / AFP via Getty Images)

Nicolas J.S. Davies
Apr 20, 2026

Common Dreams

The US government under Donald Trump has twice used disingenuous negotiations with Iran to provide cover for attacking it, in June 2025 and again before launching the current war in February. Now it is trying to do so for a third time.

On April 8, the US and Iran began a two week ceasefire, after Trump accepted a 10-point peace plan drawn up by Iran as “a workable basis on which to negotiate.” But Vice President Vance and US negotiators rejected Iran’s plan out of hand at talks in Pakistan on April 11, and instead demanded that Iran must give up its right as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (or NPT) to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The talks ended with no agreement.

As the end of the ceasefire on April 22 drew near, Trump claimed that Iran had agreed to US demands on enriched uranium and other matters. But Iran announced to the world on April 18 that it had not agreed to any of the terms Trump claimed, and that his lies and threats provided no basis for further negotiations. Iran then responded to US and Israeli ceasefire violations by once again closing the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels linked to hostile countries.

In other words, Iran called Trump’s bluff, holding the US to the terms of the two-week ceasefire. But Trump didn’t give up on his false claims, and instead insisted that Iran had agreed to another round of talks in Pakistan on April 21st, which Iran immediately denied.

The reversal in US policy that it would take to resolve this crisis would not be unprecedented.

As the April 22 deadline approaches with no agreement, many analysts now expect the end of the ceasefire to be followed, within hours or days, by a US escalation of the war and a proportionate military response from Iran, with no clear off-ramp from further escalation.

But this could be averted by a belated but genuine US reappraisal of its position, based on Iran’s ten point proposal that Trump accepted as “a workable basis on which to negotiate.”

If the United States government really wants an exit strategy from this self-imposed, ever-escalating war, it should take a fresh look at Iran’s ten point peace plan, and seriously consider how it can engage with this framework to turn over a new leaf in its relations with Iran and the region.

These are the ten points, as reported by Gulf News:A guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again
A permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire
An end to Israeli strikes in Lebanon and against Iranian allies
The lifting of all US sanctions on Iran
Iran agreeing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz
Introduction of a $2 million fee per ship transiting Hormuz
Revenue from shipping fees to be shared with Oman
Funds to be used for reconstruction of war-damaged infrastructure
Establishment of safe passage protocols through Hormuz
A broader framework to end regional hostilities

Since the United States has failed to use the two-week ceasefire to negotiate on this “workable basis,” it will be up to Iran to decide whether to agree to extend the ceasefire so that the US and Iran can finally start real negotiations.

This would require the US to begin acting in good faith, an inherently tall order, to convince Iran that it would not just use an extension of the ceasefire to prepare an even more deadly and catastrophic attack. It should immediately lift its naval blockade of Iran, stop transporting more armed forces into the region, and do whatever it takes to end Israel’s ceasefire violations in Lebanon and Palestine, including by halting the transfer of weapons that Israel uses to violate those ceasefires, as US law requires.

Without such confidence-building measures, it is hard to see why Iran would agree to an extension of the ceasefire. As Professor Mostafa Khoshcheshm in Tehran explained to Al Jazeera, Trump’s lies convinced Tehran it would not find “a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal,” and, as long as the US acts this way, “Iran will continue the war.”

“Iran believes it has the upper hand and that this must be established in any future confrontation,” he said, noting that millions of people are still taking to the streets in Iran every night to call for continued resistance.

Maybe the most vital of Iran’s ten points is the first one listed above: a guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again, either by the United States or Israel. Trump’s war crimes, his undermining of US credibility and his connivance at Israel’s ceasefire violations make such a guarantee elusive, although it is only what international law requires of all countries, that they resolve their disputes peacefully and refrain from threatening or using military force against each other.

What form of guarantee could Iran possibly accept from a country that systematically violates treaties and agreements? Engaging in good faith negotiations over the rest of Iran’s 10-point agenda, especially the lifting of US sanctions, while also moving to restore diplomatic relations, might be good first steps.

The reversal in US policy that it would take to resolve this crisis would not be unprecedented. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all forced US forces to withdraw from their countries. But those were much longer wars, involving many years of US occupation that went on until popular resistance movements made continued occupation untenable.

How long must the US war on Iran go on, and how badly must the US be defeated, before it will agree to a permanent peace? This crisis can be as long or as short, and as bloody or bloodless, as US leaders choose, and as the American people will tolerate.

The lifting of illegal US sanctions against Iran (#4 on the list) would be a vital part of any solution to this crisis. This would surely be good for both countries, and the United States would be less likely to attack Iran again if the US and Iran have reestablished mutually profitable trade relations.

Ending Israel’s attacks on Iran’s allies (#3), and a broader framework to end regional hostilities (#10) are both steps that most Americans would support. The failure of the US-Israeli war on Iran could be the desperately needed catalyst for the US to transform a US-Israeli military alliance that is committing genocide in Palestine and aggression throughout the region into a new and different relationship bounded by the rules of international law.

A US military withdrawal from its bases around the Persian Gulf could prevent the countries that host them from again becoming targets in US-Israeli wars on Iran, so it is interesting that Iran doesn’t mention them in its ten points. Perhaps Iran sees the value of these US bases as vulnerable targets in this and future wars as outweighing any threat they might pose, but that would be one more reason for the United States to withdraw from them before they cost more American lives.

There is a simple way to avoid one of the most destructive elements in recent failed negotiations with Iran, and that would be to remove Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner from the US negotiating team.

The other five items in the ten-point agenda are all related to the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is within Iran’s and Oman’s territorial waters, although charging ships to pass through it is unprecedented and legally questionable. It is really the US and Israel that should pay reparations to Iran for the death and destruction they have wreaked, not the owners of international merchant ships. But if the US will not agree to pay reparations, Iran’s tollbooths may be a compromise that all sides can live with in order to reopen the strait, as Iran itself calls for in item # 5.

There is a simple way to avoid one of the most destructive elements in recent failed negotiations with Iran, and that would be to remove Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner from the US negotiating team. Discussing prior negotiations, a diplomat from one of the Gulf countries told The Guardian, “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”

Given Witkoff and Kushner’s foreign loyalties, Trump’s lies and corruption, Rubio’s subservience to Israel, and Hegseth’s bloodlust, the United States can surely find more professional officials to represent it in these difficult negotiations, which have only been made more difficult by the flood of threats, lies and deception from the US side.But since the United States has not really tried to make peace wit Iran since abandoning the JCPOA in 2018, a new team of qualified, experienced US diplomats charged with turning over a new leaf in US-Iran relations could start with a clean slate, and they would have the support of the whole world behind their efforts to resolve this global crisis.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Nicolas J.S. Davies is an independent journalist and a researcher with CODEPINK. He is the co-author, with Medea Benjamin, of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
Full Bio >

A War Nobody Voted For — And a Congress That Let It Happen

This is not a story about Trump breaking the law. It’s a story about Congress watching him do it and choosing, repeatedly, to look away.


Demonstrators protest the possibility of War with Iran from a pedestrian bridge over Lakeshore Drive during rush hour on January 09, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Hassan Elbiali
Apr 20, 2026

Common Dreams


There’s a line in the U.S. Constitution so simple it shouldn’t require interpretation. Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power to declare war. Not the President. Congress. The Founders were explicit about this. James Madison called it “the most sacred of all” constitutional provisions — the one safeguard against a single person dragging a republic into bloodshed.

On February 28, 2026, at approxiomately 1:15 am ET, the United States began bombing Iran. No declaration of war. No congressional vote. No single national security incident was cited as the basis for the attack—Trump instead recounted 47 years of U.S.–Iran tensions, beginning with the 1979 hostage crisis, as justification. The bombs fell anyway.


‘The Constitution Is Clear and the Stakes Are High’: Coalition Demands Congress Rein In Pro-War Trump


Critics Slam Meeks, Jeffries Pushing Off War Powers Bill Just as It Gets Enough Votes to Pass

What happened next is the part that should disturb you more than the war itself.

Congress had a choice. It had the tool — the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over Nixon’s veto precisely to prevent this kind of unilateral military adventurism. The law is unambiguous: the president may not enter U.S. troops into hostilities without express congressional authorization, regardless of a conflict’s scale or duration. The 60-day clock started ticking the moment the first bomb dropped. Congress could have acted.

It didn’t. When Senators Kaine and Paul introduced a War Powers Resolution on March 1, the Senate voted it down 53–47. Then they voted it down again. And again. By mid-April, the Senate had rejected Democratic efforts to force an end to U.S. military involvement in Iran four separate times, voting largely along party lines.

Four votes. Four failures. This is not a story about Trump breaking the law. It’s a story about Congress watching him do it and choosing, repeatedly, to look away.

The War Powers Resolution was supposed to be the fix for exactly this situation. Widely considered a measure for preventing “future Vietnams,” it was nonetheless generally resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, many of whom regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority.

Every president since Nixon has treated it as optional; Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya, and now Trump in Iran. The pattern is so consistent it barely registers as news anymore. But what has changed, and what makes Operation Epic Fury different, is the scale.

This is markedly different in scope, scale, and objective from the more limited US attack on Iran of June 2025 which targeted senior leadership, military infrastructure, and nuclear capabilities. This is a war by any honest definition. The administration just refuses to call it one.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News: “This is not a war against Iran,” the same view held by most modern presidents and their lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. If you call it something else—a “police action,” a “limited engagement,” or a “kinetic military operation”—you never have to ask permission. Truman did it in Korea. Nixon did it in Cambodia. The euphemisms change; the evasion doesn’t.

But here’s the thing about this particular evasion. Congress isn’t powerless here it’s passive. The appropriations power alone gives lawmakers the ability to cut off funding for any military operation they find objectionable.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act process, combined with supplemental appropriations, provides multiple leverage points. Republican leadership isn’t using any of them. They’re not even seriously trying. Speaker Johnson called the War Powers Resolution vote “a terrible, dangerous idea” that would “empower our enemies.” That’s not a constitutional argument. That’s cover.

And the Democrats? They’ve forced the votes, yes. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has been relentless. But Kaine himself acknowledged that the renewed effort was unlikely to go anywhere, but said it’s important for members of Congress to go on record. “Going on record.” That’s what it’s come to—symbolic gestures in the face of a $200 billion war that nobody voted for.

The costs are real. The war has already cost at least $12 billion, and the Pentagon has asked the White House to approve a $200 billion supplemental request to Congress to fund the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz closed. Global oil markets lurched. Economic shocks have rippled outward, with the costs falling on ordinary Americans while those who profit from endless war count their returns. Children were killed at a school in Minab. The 60-day deadline has come and gone.

The War Powers Resolution was built for this moment. It was written by legislators who had watched Vietnam consume a generation because no one in Congress had the spine to call a war a war. “After Nixon, it’s gone on from one president to the next , they believe they can use military force against one country after another,” says Louis Fisher, who served for 35 years as senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service.

Fifty years later, the lesson has not been learned. The resolution that was supposed to restore congressional war powers has instead become a ritual. A series of doomed votes that let lawmakers signal opposition without actually exercising it.

There is one question that cuts through all of it. Sen. Kaine asked it directly on the Senate floor: “If you don’t have the guts to vote yes or no on a war vote, how dare you send our sons and daughters into war where they risk their lives?”

No one answered him. That silence is the real story.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution wasn’t just a law. It was a promise that the United States would never again stumble into a catastrophic military conflict without the consent of the people’s elected representatives. Operation Epic Fury has broken that promise to the American people once again. Congress has the power to keep it. Right now, it is choosing not to.

That choice has a cost. Someone should start paying it.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Hassan Elbiali is a political analyst and writer covering US foreign policy, international security, and Middle East geopolitics. His work has appeared in Independent Australia, Z Magazine, and other international affairs publications.
Full Bio >