It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, September 24, 2026
In Defiant UN Speech, Iranian President Says US and Israel Are the Real Terrorists
Masoud Pezeshkian delivered his address after the president of the United States—which one progressive commentator called “the world’s biggest terrorist”—again threatened to “annihilate” Iran.
Iran’s president used his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday to turn Washington’s decades-old assertion that his country is the world’s leading terrorist state on its head by accusing the US—which has killed and wounded tens of thousands of Iranians during President Donald Trump’s illegal war of choice—of terrorism against Iranians.
“The United States president described us as terrorists,” Masoud Pezeshkian told world leaders gathered in New York, referring to President Donald Trump’s speech there the previous day. “We have been the victims of terrorism.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian holds a photo of one of the 120 children killed in the February 28, 2026 US missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, during his September 23, 2026 address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. (Photo by PBS/YouTube/screen shot)
Pezeshkian held up photographs of some of the 120 children massacred when the US bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab during the opening hours of the US-Israeli war in February, an attack that killed over 150 people in total and was called a likely war crime by UN experts last week.
“You see these children?” he said. “These children perished under bombs with weapons used by the United States and Israel. They were innocent.”
“Those who are terrorists, and train and protect terrorists, describe us as such,” the president continued. “We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists.”
As Pezeshkian continued, the US representative attending the session got up and walked out. This, a day after Trump again threatened to “annihilate” the entire country of Iran—comments interpreted by many observers to mean nuclear war.
“Our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggression imposed upon our country,” the Iranian president said. “America and Israel attacked us equipped with the latest technology and weapons systems, and our people stood steadfast. Yes, they did hit us, but we did not bend the knee. We did not bow our head.”
He also noted that Israel “targets any neighborhood in any city in any province” and “commits assassinations like a true terrorist.”
The Iranian president stressed that “for the past two centuries, Iran has not attacked any country,” even as Washingtonhelped overthrow Iran’s reformist government in the 1950s, restoring a brutal monarchy and, later, supported actual US-designated terrorists who had carried out deadly attacks against not only Iranians but also US officials. The US also shot down an Iranian commercial airliner—an attack deemed an accident, for which then-President George HW Bush refused to apologize.
The United States and Iran have designated all or parts of each other’s armed forces as terrorist organizations. Both countries have long histories of supporting militant groups which often act as proxies.
The US and Israel—often alone or nearly so on the world stage—deny all the allegations against them. Trump and senior members of his administration even initially claimed that Iran bombed the Minab school, even as the evidence of US culpability grew too damning to deny.
The back-and-forth allegations of terrorism highlight a larger question raised by Pezeshkian’s speech: Who gets to define terrorism when the world’s most powerful military is involved? Do the more technologically sophisticated arsenals of the US and Israel—which include 2,000-pound bombs and artificial intelligence systems capable of selecting targets far faster than any human—legitimize their users’ violence, even if they’re killing more people than their enemy, and exponentially so?
Under 18 US Code § 2331(5), terrorism is defined as “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state appearing to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”
By that definition, say many critics of US policy and practice, the United States is a terrorist state. And not just any terrorist, progressive political commentator Kyle Kulinski contended in a new essay published by Current Affairs, but rather “the world’s biggest terrorist.”
Kulinski’s piece addressed the controversy surrounding leftist streamer Hasan Piker, who argued that the United States has caused extraordinary amounts of terror around the world under successive presidents regardless of party, and should be judged by the same standards Washington applies to organizations such as al-Qaeda, many of whose fighters had received US funding and arms to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s before they turned on their erstwhile benefactors in response to Washington’s own militant imperialism.
Kulinski pointed to the Minab school strike, the US bombing of a wedding in Iran, its support for Israel during the Gaza genocide, the illegal attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean—which UN experts this week said could amount to crimes against humanity—and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro during January’s invasion of Venezuela, which is one of 10 countries attacked during the two terms of Trump, who campaigned for reelection as the “peace president.”
“And do you think it began with Trump? Bad news for you. The architect of the Great Society, the great Democrat [former President]Lyndon Johnson, was napalming little Vietnamese girls long before Trump was blowing up Iranian elementary schools,” Kulinski wrote.
Johnson’s Democratic predecessor, John F. Kennedy, “began a massive terror campaign against Cuba, designed specifically to hurt civilians in order to bring political change—textbook terrorism.”
Recently, Kulinski wrote, former President Joe Biden “was sending constant weapons to Israel during the deadliest parts of Israel’s genocide.”
“The record of US-supported terrorism is long,” he said. “We helped the Indonesian government massacre half a million communists. We helped the Contras terrorize Nicaragua. We even helpedSaddam Hussein use chemical weapons on Iran.”
Kulinski noted that former President George W. Bush, “possibly the worst terrorist of our age, caused maybe half a million deaths in Iraq with his totally illegal war. He made Osama bin Laden look like an amateur. And now he has a new book of paintings coming out. They’re portraits of political prisoners. I’m guessing it probably won’t include all the people he tortured for years in Guantánamo.”
“The truth needs to matter,” Kulinski concluded. “In defamation cases, truth is always a defense. The US is the biggest, baddest bully on the block. We do not care about international law, human rights, the Constitution, or justice. How are we supposed to change anything for the better if we can’t acknowledge the most obvious things in the world?”
‘This Would Be a Nuclear Genocide’: Global Outrage Grows Over Trump’s UNGA Threat Against Iran
“We must stop this madman,” said US Sen. Ed Markey. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2026 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump is facing global condemnation for his threat to “annihilate” Iran during a Tuesday speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said on Tuesday that the president’s speech “clearly constitutes an implied threat to use overwhelming nuclear force against Iran and the Iranian people broadly.”
“This would be a nuclear genocide,” Drozdenko emphasized. “Any threat to use nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and his decision to do so should be strongly condemned by government, military, and civil society leaders.”
Drozdenko acknowledged that Trump’s long history of unhinged rhetoric might make his statements easy to dismiss, but warned even empty threats involving nuclear weapons can have serious real-world ramifications.
“President Trump’s nuclear threats against Iran reinforce a counterproductive lesson also imparted by President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats against Ukraine,” she said. “Specifically, these threats encourage other countries to conclude that protecting and securing themselves from authoritarians with nuclear weapons requires obtaining their own nuclear arsenal.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also said that Trump’s menacing rhetoric toward Iran must be taken seriously.
“Trump threatened to ‘annihilate’ Iran,” Markey wrote in a social media post. “His ‘October surprise’ must not be a mushroom cloud from a nuclear attack. With these threats and assistance to Saudi Arabia, Trump is inferring mass slaughter and escalating an arms race in the Middle East. We must stop this madman.”
Robert Tait, US correspondent for The Guardian, wrote an analysis on Tuesday arguing that Trump’s threat against Iran was “stunning, even for him.”
Tait noted that it has been decades since the UN General Assembly has “witnessed such a display of bellicosity from a superpower leader,” especially since it was delivered in a “forum created in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the explicit aim of preventing future conflicts.”
“Whether or not the latest threat should be taken literally,” Tait added, “little of what he said about Iran seemed reassuring.”
With ‘Blood-Soaked War Criminal’ Set to Land in Mamdani’s NYC, Calls Grow to Arrest Netanyahu The mayor has said New York can’t enforce the ICC warrant against Israel’s prime minister, but one human rights lawyer argued it’s “not the only tool available to the US when it comes to holding Netanyahu accountable.” Pro-Palestinian protesters march through Manhattan near the United Nations as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the General Assembly during the 80th session of the annual event on September 26, 2025, in New York. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to land in New York for a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, calls are once again mounting for the accused war criminal to be arrested.
After becoming mayor, Mamdani backed off the pledge earlier this summer, stating that New York lacked the “independent legal authority” to detain him under the ICC warrant. However, he said Netanyahu should still be “arrested and tried” by the federal government.
In the days leading up to his visit to New York, which is expected to be brief, Netanyahu indicated he planned to address the mayor during his General Assembly speech, falsely accusing him of supporting Hamas and inciting riots against Jewish New Yorkers.
“I’m coming to the UN,” the prime minister said. “I’m going to tell the truth about our heroic soldiers, and I’m going to tell the truth about you.”
Mamdani hit back during a CNN interview on Tuesday: “I have been clear about the way that I see the world. And I always owe New Yorkers that honesty. And when it comes to Benjamin Netanyahu, I have described him as I believe him to be: a war criminal and an architect of a horrific genocide of the Palestinian people.”
Of the ICC warrant, he reiterated that it was “something that should be honored, because what we want to see... is a faith in our politics, a faith in accountability.”
In July, a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans believed the US government should arrest Netanyahu under the warrant, 27% said it should not, and 23% were unsure.
President Donald Trumpstated earlier this summer that Netanyahu “will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form” while visiting the US. His administration’s position, as stated in a February 2025 executive order, is that Netanyahu can’t be arrested. The ICC, it says, “has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel” because, unlike most other nations, neither is a party to the Rome Statute, which created the court.
Jake Romm, a legal adviser for the Hind Rajab Foundation—a group named after a 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces—argued Tuesday in The Nation that even if the ICC warrant can’t be enforced on US soil, it “is not the only tool available to the US when it comes to holding Netanyahu accountable.”
Romm noted the existence of “two robust federal criminal statutes,” the War Crimes Act and the Genocide Statute, which he said incorporate “important international instruments into US law”—the Geneva Convention governing the laws of war and the Genocide Convention, respectively.
He wrote that both of these laws give the US jurisdiction over alleged war criminals “regardless of where the crimes have been committed” when the suspect is physically present in the US, or the crimes were committed against US nationals.
Romm acknowledged that Netanyahu is shielded from arrest during his official UN visit and that sitting heads of government generally enjoy immunity from national courts, but argued that those protections do not eliminate the United States’ underlying authority to prosecute him under federal war crimes and genocide laws.
“The United States has the ability to arrest Netanyahu for crimes under US law and to prosecute him in US courts,” Romm wrote. “I stress this not because I believe that an administration that has, at every turn, deepened its complicity in Israel’s crimes will suddenly change. I stress the US’s ability and obligation to arrest Netanyahu—and all Israeli perpetrators of the genocides in Palestine and southern Lebanon—in order to make one thing clear: Every day that Netanyahu remains free is a day that the US has allowed him to remain free.”
It’s not just the United States that has allowed Netanyahu to travel freely despite the warrant. Emma Fourreau, a French member of the European Parliament, accused her nation’s government—which is obligated to arrest Netanyahu under the Rome Statute—of having “trample[d] on international law” by giving his aircraft clearance to pass through its airspace en route to New York.
Craig Mokhiber, a former senior UN human rights official who resigned in 2023 while accusing Israel of carrying out a “textbook genocide” in Gaza, said the fact that Netanyahu would be showing up at the UN unencumbered, even while being “universally despised, and blocked from travel to most countries on the planet,” was a “stain” on the entire institution.
“He will even be allowed to enter UN premises and to address the [General Assembly], received as a VIP rather than the blood-soaked war criminal that he is,” Mokhiber said on social media, describing it as one of many failures of the institution to respond to Israel’s actions in Gaza.
He noted that the General Assembly had not stripped Israel of its credentials as it did with apartheid-era South Africa, that the UN Security Council had endorsed the Trump-led “Board of Peace” proposal to govern postwar Gaza, and that Secretary-General António Guterres had declined to use the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s conduct, even while other top UN experts had.
“The genocidaires are not just walking among us, they are ruling over us. They are trying to normalize genocide and apartheid,” Mokhiber said. “We, in our millions, must act to denormalize these scourges, to hold the perpetrators and accomplices accountable, and to ensure they never have a moment’s peace until justice prevails.”
Senate Democrats Push Sanctions Over E1 Settlement Construction in Israeli-Occupied West Bank
“Benjamin Netanyahu’s disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult.”
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich holds a map of an area known as E1, outside Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, on August 14, 2025. (Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images)
Nineteen US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction of Israeli settlements in the E1 area east of Jerusalem in the West Bank, which would split the illegally occupied Palestinian territory in two.
“The E1 settlement project is a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank, and those who choose to facilitate settlement construction should understand that they risk losing access to the US financial system,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is leading the legislation with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
“The United States must use all diplomatic and economic tools available to counter rapid settlement expansion and extremist settler violence in the West Bank, spiraling trends that will only undermine the prospect of lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians,” she argued.
Critics of the plan to build 3,401 housing units in the E1 area—and recent unprecedented violence by Israeli settlers and soldiers toward Palestinians in the West Bank—have pressured governments across the globe to respond with sanctions. In the face of such pressure, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said earlier this month that the E1 plan was designed to “make the two-state solution unviable.”
Within the next nine months, Miliband pledged, the United Kingdom’s Labour government will “take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion,” and penalize “those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements.”
The United Kingdom, France, and Canada have joined forces to ban imports of goods and some services from illegal Israeli settlements. Their foreign ministers also partnered with those from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden for a joint statement in which they said the situation in the West Bank is “rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project.”
The foreign ministers confirmed their “intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures.”
In the United States on Wednesday, Wyden took aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is heading to New York City this week for the United Nations General Assembly, which has sparked fresh calls for his arrest in accordance with an International Criminal Court warrant issued over his government’s genocidal war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
“Benjamin Netanyahu’s disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult,” said Wyden. “The United States must stand up against Netanyahu’s campaign of violence and aggression against Palestinian civilians and sanction individuals and companies that are complicit in this unlawful action.”
Under both Republican President Donald Trump and his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, the US has given Israel billions of dollars in military support, despite the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
As the Trump administration pushes a proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel—weapons Israeli forces have dropped on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon—polling commissioned by the magazine Liberal Currents and released Monday by the Center for Strategic Politics shows that Americans want Trump and Biden officials held accountable for the genocide.
Although a growing number of lawmakers have joined scholars and rights advocates around the world in condemning Israel’s war on Gaza since the October 2023 Hamas-led attack as a genocide, Congress hasn’t taken any concrete action to limit military aid to Israel.
The bill unveiled Wednesday is similarly unlikely to go anywhere—even though, as Gallego noted, “for decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have pushed for a two-state solution,” and the Israeli construction would “threaten a viable Palestinian state.”
“It’s a step in the wrong direction,” Gallego said of the settlement plan. “This legislation sends a clear message to Prime Minister Netanyahu: The United States stands firmly behind a two-state solution as the only path to real peace and security for all.”
Coons—a “staunch” longtime supporter of Israel—pointed out that “for decades, American presidents from both parties have warned successive Israeli governments that construction in E1 threatened the viability of a Palestinian state and was unacceptable to the United States.”
However, even if Democrats win back control of the Senate, or perhaps both congressional chambers, in November’s midterm elections, there appears to be little appetite within the Trump administration to do or say anything about the E1 plan.
After the European nations’ moves earlier this month, Politico highlighted that “the White House’s approach to US allies hitting Israeli settlers with sanctions comes down to this: Say as little as possible and let it happen.”
Still, according to Coons, “as Palestinian civilians face a campaign of devastation and fear from violent extremist settlers, the United States must send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and that it remains committed to freedom, security, prosperity and self-determination for all Israelis and Palestinians.”
The bill is backed by the liberal Zionist organization J Street, whose president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, also pointed to previous administrations treating E1 construction “as a clear red line because of the devastating blow it would deal to the possibility of a negotiated resolution to the conflict,” and called Trump’s failure to enforce that same standard “shameful.”
“We applaud Sen. Coons, Warren, Wyden, and Gallego for taking a clear stand to preserve the possibility of peace and long-term security for Israelis and Palestinians,” said Ben-Ami, whose group opposes broad boycotts of Israel.
In addition to the four lead sponsors, the bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Martin Heinrich (NM), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Andy Kim (NJ), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (RI), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and Peter Welch (Vt.).
Khaled Elgindy, a senior research fellow in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s Middle East program and adjunct instructor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, offered some criticism of the bill.
“The ‘individuals or groups’ enabling E1 is called the Israeli [government],” Elgindy wrote on social media. “This looks like another attempt by D’s to look like they’re doing something without actually doing something.”
‘The Powerful Fear Us’: Spain’s Sánchez and NYC’s Mamdani Join Hands Against Right-Wing Fascism
The two leaders spoke about policies to promote economic justice and immigrant rights at an event, as nearly 130 world leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani met in New York on September 23, 2026 as world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly. (Photo by @sanchezcastejon/X)
As New York City plays host to nearly 130 world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly, progressive Mayor Zohran Mamdani is making a point of meeting with a number of international politicians who share his commitment to “building an economy for the many”—the official theme of a Wednesday morning breakfast he held at Gracie Mansion, where Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was a key guest.
The event gave the two leaders an opportunity to discuss, as the prime minister said on social media, “more jobs, better wages, less inequality.”
“Social justice is not the enemy of economic growth,” he said.
Sánchez spoke to a group of assembled leaders—including Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, a fierce critic of government inaction on the climate emergency and inequality, and socialist European Council President António Costa—about Spain’s economic policies, such as a 66% increase in the national minimum wage over the past eight years.
“Spain is showing that another economic model is possible, and New York is demonstrating that the same ambition can transform our cities,” said Sánchez, who represents the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party. “That is why the powerful fear us, because every day we show that there is another possible path and that it works.”
“We were told that if you want growth, you have to accept inequality. That the workers have to make sacrifices. That if you want to be competitive, you have to have low wages and bad public services. I never believed it,” Sánchez added. “Spain has shown that it was not true. We have raised the [Spanish minimum income] by 66%. We were told it would destroy jobs, but we have more workers than ever. One in every two jobs created in Europe are Spanish. We were told that with clean energy we would be less competitive. Now we have 60% and the cheapest energy. They always tell us that [these policies] are not going to work. The reality is that they do work for ordinary people.”
The policies of Sánchez and Mamdani have angered right-wing leaders, including President Donald Trump. The president threatened Spain with a trade embargo earlier this year when Sánchez refused to allow US war planes to refuel at Spanish military bases as the US and Israel waged war on Iran.
Administration officials also condemned Sánchez’s pro-immigration stance in July when migrants from Africa entered the self-governing Spanish city of Ceuta. The prime minister offered hundreds of thousands of migrants a chance at permanent legal residency in Spain earlier this year, contrasting with Trump’s violent mass deportation campaign.
“Migration has made Spain stronger,” said Sánchez on Wednesday. “Migration makes us a better country. No question.”
Without mentioning Trump by name, he added: “This matters because there are politicians on both sides of the Atlantic trying to convince working people that their problem is another working person—someone born somewhere else, someone who earns even less than they do. It is one of the oldest political tricks in history: Make people look sideways so they never look up.”
While appearing to admire the charismatic and ultrapopular Mamdani—whose 69% approval rating among his constituents contrasts sharply with the 29% of Americans who currently support the president—Trump has railed against recent electoral victories of politicians who share Mamdani’s commitment to universal, government-funded social services, raising taxes on billionaires, and ensuring life is affordable for working people.
In June, he called democratic socialists like Mamdani “the most serious threat to our country since its existence,” and during Mamdani’s mayoral campaign, the candidate confronted border czar Tom Homan over Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.
At the Wednesday morning event, where Mamdani praised Sánchez for sending a message through his minimum wage policy that “work matters... dignity matters,” the mayor said that working together, the two leaders and other progressives in power can build “a better world, bringing the movement for equality and justice to more distant horizons.”
Costa, who served as the prime minister of Portugal, added on social media that “in an interdependent world, we need coordinated solutions to global and local challenges.”
“That is why we must defend international law and multilateral institutions like the UN,” said Costa. “And that is why we must put the well-being of our citizens at the center of our policies.”
“It is truly a privilege to be able to learn from one another, emulate each other’s successes, and develop strategies that imitate the great progress those in this room have achieved,” said Mamdani at the event.
The mayor has also met with progressive mayors from Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Mexico City, and other cities to discuss housing, migration, and climate policies. On Tuesday, he visited a New York City public school with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and the two leaders discussed limiting artificial intelligence in education.
Stop Mad King Donald’s Iran War: An Open Letter to Members of the US Congress
The war with Iran is Trump’s folly but Congress’s disgrace for not stopping it.
In truly deranged remarks to world leaders at the UN, Donald Trump declared that “I have a big decision to make,” whether to negotiate a deal with Iran or instead to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and drive Iran “into hell with no chance of survival.”
He posed it as his personal choice. The fact that the American people are dead set against Trump’s war means nothing. And as for the voters, he added that he gives “absolutely no credence” to the coming midterm elections in deciding on his actions and on Iran’s fate.
The President’s threat to annihilate a member state of the United Nations, delivered from the General Assembly podium, disgraced Trump in front of the world.
Nothing binds this President. He is not bound by law, the Constitution, the UN Charter, or public opinion at home and abroad. When asked at the start of the year whether he has any limits on his power, he said “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Trump opened his speech with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, hailing America’s freedom. The fact is that Trump’s authoritarianism far outdoes that of King George III, against whom the colonies rebelled. Among the founders’ indictments of Mad King George was that “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Yet our own mad king has decided that the survival of a whole civilization is in his hands alone.
Trump is emboldened in his contempt for Congress because the Republican members of Congress have abdicated their constitutional responsibilities, terrified of their own president, and forsaking their constituents for campaign lucre from AIPAC and the military-industrial complex.
The Constitution is unambiguous regarding Congress’s responsibility. Article I, Section 8 assigns Congress, not the President, the sole power to declare war. That is not a choice or an option. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can play dead and let the President declare war. The Framers made this choice deliberately, because they were explicitly rejecting the power of a king to take the nation to war.
In Federalist 69, Hamilton assured the public that the President’s war powers would be far less than the British monarch’s. Madison stated the principle plainly in a letter to Jefferson in 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
The founders’ careful design has been overturned because of the unconstitutional subservience of the Republican members of Congress to Trump and to the military-industrial-digital complex. And yes, under Democratic presidents, most Democratic members of Congress also looked the other way when those presidents chose to go to war.
The war with Iran is Trump’s folly but Congress’s disgrace for not stopping it. It is a war without a purpose that has created mass suffering in Iran, tens of billions of dollars of direct outlays, and staggering damage to American military bases in eight countries of the Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent world and American prices soaring for oil, gas, fertilizers, and more. And the world has duly noted that Iran can hold its own against US aggression, albeit at great sacrifice to the people of Iran and the region.
America’s much vaunted AI battlefield has been exposed in the most horrifying way. On the first day of the war, an American missile struck the girls’ elementary school there, killing more than 150 people, most of them girls aged seven to twelve, and the military’s own inquiry reportedly found that overreliance on artificial intelligence contributed to the targeting. Trump blamed “Iran or somebody else,” and seven months later the administration has offered no findings, no apology and no compensation to the families.
The President’s threat to annihilate a member state of the United Nations, delivered from the General Assembly podium, disgraced Trump in front of the world. It also violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits even the threat of force against another state. Nearly all the world stands aghast.
I write to you because you cannot simply walk away from Trump’s recklessness, shaking your heads silently. You have a job to do, so do it. The craven Republican Party has to find even a minimal level of guts to tell Trump, “No, you do not have the power to destroy Iran. Any war with Iran depends on us, and we don’t support you and our constituents want this war to stop.” A clear majority of Americans oppose this war, and poll after poll shows that the opposition to the war is growing. A few Republicans have found that courage. Last week three more Republicans broke ranks to support ending the war. Their colleagues should follow.
Many of you receive campaign contributions from military contractors and technology companies deeply involved in the war. Many of you take money from AIPAC, which champions the war that Netanyahu did so much to help launch. This has to stop, as it is a dereliction of your constitutional duty and a violation of your oath.
Congress holds the power of the purse. The fiscal year ends on September 30, and every bill that funds the Pentagon is your opportunity to prohibit funds for unauthorized offensive operations against Iran.
The right course for the US is simple. Congress should cut off funding, and the US should stop further attacks and go home. We need no agreement with Iran or anyone else to stop the war that we started. By ending the war you will immediately restore some sanity and safety to the world energy markets, food supplies, and prices faced by Americans and others around the world.
How America has declined from the glorious moment when John F. Kennedy stood at the same podium at the UN on September 20, 1963, after having negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union. He told the assembled leaders that the treaty can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: “Give me a place where I can stand—and I shall move the world.” My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.
Members of Congress, to save our nation’s honor and our Constitution, you must do your duty to stop this war, and stop Trump’s brazen, destructive, and unconstitutional grab for power.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Jeffrey D. Sachs Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon. Full Bio >
‘Trump Vanity Calculator’ Spotlights President’s Abuse of $1.8 Billion in Taxpayer Funds
“Trump’s abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities,” said US Sen. Maggie Hassan.
Golden Donald Trump statue is seen at Trump National Doral on April 30, 2026 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Ben Jared/PGA TOUR via Getty Images)
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday released a report calculating that taxpayer funding for President Donald Trump’s vanity projects has soared to more than $1.8 billion.
Renovations made to the White House—including the president’s luxury ballroom—are the biggest projected expenses, as the analysis cites reporting from The Washington Post last month to estimate that they will cost $927 million.
After the White House renovations, the second-most expensive Trump vanity project highlighted in the report is the estimated $400 million that will be required to provide security upgrades to the luxury jet the president received as a gift from the Qatari government.
The report finds that taxpayers will also be on the hook for $257 in renovations to the the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, which the president has threatened to tear down unless he is allowed to slap his name on the side of the building.
The president’s “Triumphal Arch” monument is another big-ticket item, as the report calculates it will cost $100 million to construct. Trump’s infamously botched attempt to renovate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, meanwhile, is set to cost taxpayers $16 million.
The Democrats on the JEC also released a Trump Vanity Calculator, an online tool that shows the opportunity costs of the president’s assorted projects.
Among other things, the calculator shows that the $1.8 billion spent on the projects would be enough to pay for more than 607 million school lunches, or 117,000 additional Head Start slots, or 246,000 Pell Grants.
Redirecting the spending on the Trump projects would also be enough to restore funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—which were cut as part of the Republican Party’s 2025 budget law—for over 429,000 families.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the JEC, said the report shows that Trump “has wasted taxpayer dollars on projects that benefit himself instead of the American people.”
“Trump’s abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities,” Hassan said. “President Trump admits that he doesn’t think about the financial situation of Americans, and the American people can see that; instead, he thinks about how he can use their money to build gold-plated monuments to himself.”
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to cut Americans’ energy costs in half while keeping the country out of foreign wars.
In February, Trump launched an illegal war against Iran without any congressional authorization that has sent energy prices skyrocketing, including record-high prices for diesel fuel.
Through it all, Trump has continued touting his vanity projects, including the aforementioned ballroom and arch, even as polls show that the high cost of living is American voters’ biggest concern.
With the midterm elections just six weeks away, a survey released by CNN on Wednesday shows that just 24% of Americans say that Trump has the right priorities as president, while two-thirds say he has worsened economic conditions in the country.
Closing the Strait of No News
Together, media organizations have the ability to cut off the air supply that Trump routinely sucks out of every situation. If they translate this tactic into a much longer-term strategy, they could shift the relationship onto much healthier ground. A television camera is pointed at the entrance to the West Wing of the White House on September 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Daniel Heuer/Getty Images)
In his typical fashion, which many commentators characterize as act first, think never, President Donald Trump has handed the media, i.e., the enemy of the people, an extremely potent weapon if only they have the fortitude to use it. Much as his illegal and unwinnable war enabled the Iranians to translate their potential control over the Strait of Hormuz into an actual lever of economic, military, and geopolitical power, so too his “ban” on CNN, MSNOW, and Politico could initiate a shift in the power dynamics of Trump-press relations.
If the initial and much too rare show of solidarity among the news organizations can be sustained long enough to demonstrate their ability to deprive Trump of the constant attention he so desperately craves, this could become the basis for a much-needed recalibration of the bully-bullied interactions.
The constitutional aspects of the case are startlingly clear. It is almost (and in these fraught moments, the “almost” is necessary) impossible to imagine the circumstances that would sustain Trump’s ban. His own statements make clear that the exclusions (and those that might follow) are based on viewpoint, a basis specifically and repeatedly denied by the courts. Given that the lawsuit filed by the three banned organizations is being handled by the same judge that ruled against Trump when he barred CNN’s then-reporter Jim Acosta, the outcome appears predictable. If so, the three plaintiffs will be reinstated and confiscated credentials will be returned.
If and when that happens, what should these news outlets and the others who are now standing with them do? Should they return to the same abusive environment that saw them banned in the first place? An environment that degrades and demeans their work whenever Trump needs to feed his ego or his base? Or should they, with their new-found cudgel of silencing him, make a series of demands to shift the ground on which they might operate moving forward? The present actions have already demonstrated that, together, these media organizations have the ability to cut off the air supply that Trump routinely sucks out of every situation. If they translate this tactic into a much longer-term strategy (the threat of boycott) they could shift the relationship onto much healthier ground. Just as a bonus, Trump’s ranting and raving about his lack of coverage would, itself, be a ratings bonanza.
What kinds of demands should constitute the new order? First and foremost, should be an insistence that Trump treat the press in general with the respect that the First Amendment requires. No more “enemy of the people” and empty “fake news” epithets. Secondly, and equally importantly, should be a no-nonsense prohibition on attacks on individual journalists, particularly women journalists, and most especially female journalists of color. No more threatening lunges; no more “quiet piggy;” no more comments on appearance or (dis)ability or (too thinly veiled) race. Finally (although in cooler-head moments more demands might appear), the representatives of the press should insist on equal access for reporters and journalists from all viewpoints on the political spectrum. If Trump and his nearby psychophants are unwilling to negotiate these terms in good faith, and then abide by them, the press as a solidary group should be ready, able, and willing to close the Strait of No-News. After all, a spine is a terrible thing to waste!
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened.
Attendees hold signs as they listen to speakers during a rally calling for an end to corporate money in politics and to mark the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, at Lafayette Square near the White House, January 21, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Political consultants warn Democratic candidates not to talk about regulating artificial intelligence, Politico reported this week. Not because that would be unpopular—it would be very popular!. No, the consultants warned, it’s that outspoken candidates could be demolished by millions of dollars suddenly dumped into their races by tech companies.
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened. It all has received far too little attention.
According to The New York Times, “All across America, the midterm elections are drowning in dark money.” That term is used when the identity of the person giving or spending the money is kept secret from the public. So far this year, the Times reports, $1 billion of dark money is sloshing through the political system, and the real number will surely be much higher. I’ll be talking with Theodore Schleifer, one of the authors of that story, on our podcast, out Wednesday.
Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money?
Committees with vaguely patriotic names spring into being and suddenly have tens of millions of dollars to spend. Ads focus on topics far removed from the real concern of the donors. It’s not just television anymore. Money flows to digital ads and content creators as well. The public doesn’t know where all this money comes from, but candidates surely do.
Earlier this year, super PACs backed by rival AI firms dueled on the streets of Manhattan, spending tens of millions of dollars for or against a single congressional candidate, Alex Bores, an outspoken industry critic. Across the country, AI and cryptocurrency companies spent more than $127 million in primaries this year.
Too often, money in politics becomes background noise. Journalists often look at only the fully disclosed “hard money” to candidates and ignore the harder-to-quantify secret spending. Headlines focus on flashy democratic socialists or on attacks on pro-Israel groups like American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Meanwhile, big industries do what they do, pouring massive funds into the political process.
What will be the partisan impact? Twenty big donors, the Times reported, mostly billionaires, have so far spent $1.2 billion on this year’s elections. All but two favored Republicans. Elon Musk recently announced plans to spend at least $100 million through his super PAC. On the other hand, in 2024 most dark money was spent for Democrats in federal races.
After the votes are counted, we may learn if and how money made the difference in many races. But we won’t necessarily know whose spending tilted the election. Perhaps more importantly, all this money surely will have a big impact on government.
For all this, thank the Supreme Court. It has demolished the campaign finance laws, in Citizens United and other cases. According to the justices, such unlimited spending is allowed if it is disclosed (it isn’t) and if it is independent (gimme a break). At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the ability to give unlimited campaign contributions was “the whole point” of the First Amendment. Our dystopian, money-drenched politics is a product of a Supreme Court badly in need of reform.
The media could do much more to explain what’s happening. The Times and a few other outlets have done stellar work. But far too often, campaign cash totals are treated merely as part of the horse race of politics.
Politicians themselves must respond. Year after year, politicians decry corruption but fail to act to pass stronger campaign finance laws. The next Congress must make reform a central goal. We need a law to end dark money and implement small donor public financing, as well as a constitutional amendment to undo misguided rulings such as Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.
Public outrage about corruption is extraordinarily high across party lines, as a recent Brennan Center survey showed. This time of year is when we have the full attention of those who would lead us. Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money? And then hold them to their promises.
Michael Waldman Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving the systems of democracy and justice. Full Bio >
58% of US Women Who Need Cheap Birth Control Could Lose Access Due to GOP Attacks on Planned Parenthood
“There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Pro-choice supporters and staff of Planned Parenthood hold a rally outside the Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center in St. Louis, Missouri on May 31, 2019. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Data released Wednesday by the Guttmacher Institute and Power to Decide shows “the stark and brutal reality that awaits patients across the country” if Republican lawmakers in Congress fulfill their goal of “defunding” Planned Parenthood, which provides contraceptive counseling and services to millions of patients per year, as well as other essential healthcare services.
As part of the publicly funded contraceptive care network that’s been in place for over half a century, the Guttmacher Institute said, Planned Parenthood’s healthcare centers served 1.6 million—roughly a third—of the 4.7 million patients who needed access to affordable family planning centers in 2020.
But with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress aiming to remove Planned Parenthood facilities from the network, as many as 12.4 million women who need low-cost or free birth control could have their access sharply reduced, as they live in counties that would be affected by the GOP cuts.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act brought the GOP “closer than ever” to stripping Planned Parenthood of funding—which comes not from a “blank check from the federal or state government,” as Republicans have often suggested, but largely from reimbursements for care clinics provide to patients who have Medicaid or who are eligible for free or reduced-fee services through Title X.
The law included an effective ban on Medicare reimbursements to Planned Parenthood clinics for one year, and just over a year since its passage, nearly 30 of the organization’s health centers have closed.
If Republicans succeed in further cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood, 58% of women who need access to affordable or free birth control would be affected, said Guttmacher.
The West would be the hardest-hit region in the country, with 4.1 million women losing access to contraceptives in 94 counties.
Nearly 30 counties across the US would be left with no publicly funded contraceptive provider at all.
“When President [Donald] Trump and his backers in Congress say they want to shut down Planned Parenthood, they mean it,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “And when we say the consequences of stopping people from being able to get the healthcare they need are catastrophic, we mean it too.”
“This is not a hypothetical, and we’re not playing make-believe,” she added. “There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for Guttmacher, said the data released by the group “demonstrates why policymakers and advocates must stand together in strong defense of Planned Parenthood and all providers of quality and affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare.”
“As politically motivated attacks against Planned Parenthood have resulted in shuttered clinics and real harms to patients,” she said, “it is increasingly important to study the critical role that Planned Parenthood plays in the publicly funded healthcare system and why attacks on these health centers are so devastating.”
