Wednesday, June 18, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"Alistair Kitchen's deportation is a clear case of retaliation in connection with his reporting, and such action sends a chilling message to journalists," said one press freedom defender.
By Brett Wilkins
A leading press freedom advocate on Tuesday condemned the United States' "disturbing pattern" of screening and expelling international visitors for their political viewpoints following the detention and removal of an Australian journalist who criticized the Trump administration's targeting of Palestine defenders on college campuses.
Alistair Kitchen said he was detained for 12 hours and interrogated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Los Angeles International Airport while en route from Melbourne, Australia to New York last week.
"If you are deleting social media 48 hours before your flight to the U.S., it is already too late."
"I was denied entry, detained, and deported from the USA over the last 48 hours because of my reporting on the Columbia [University] student protests," Kitchen wrote Friday on the social media site Bluesky. "I arrived back in Melbourne hours ago and had my phone handed back to me upon landing."
"I had it easy," he added, "one woman had been in that detention room four days when I arrived; she's still there."
Kitchen said that CBP agents "were waiting for me when I got off the plane," and although he "had cleaned up my online presence expecting ad hoc digital sweeps," he "was not prepared for their sophistication."
"If you are deleting social media 48 hours before your flight to the U.S., it is already too late," he stressed.
Kitchen wrote that the agents "just came out and said it: 'We both know why you've been detained…it's because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia,'" he recounted.
Responding to Kitchen's ordeal, Jonathan Friedman, managing director of the U.S. Free Expression Programs at PEN America, said in a statement Tuesday that "it is gravely concerning to read an account of someone being detained and turned away at the border due to their writings on student protests, Palestine, and the Trump administration."
"Writers, artists, and scholars must be free to express their views openly without compromising their free movement across borders," Friedman added. "Kitchen's account fits a disturbing pattern, in which border agents appear to be screening visitors to the U.S. for their viewpoints. That is anti-democratic, and it must be halted."
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)—which earlier this year issued its first-ever travel advisory for journalists entering the United States, including warnings about searches of electronic devices—called Kitchen's detention and expulsion "alarming."
"Alistair Kitchen's deportation is a clear case of retaliation in connection with his reporting, and such action sends a chilling message to journalists that they must support the administration's narratives or face forms of retribution," CPJ U.S., Canada, and Caribbean Program coordinator Katherine Jacobsen said Monday.
"Foreign media operating on U.S. soil are covered by First Amendment protections, and it is incumbent upon U.S. officials—from [CBP] to the White House—to allow journalists to do their jobs and travel freely without fear of reprisal," Jacobsen added.
Kitchen suspects CBP agents used technology contracted from Palantir, which has been targeted by the No Tech for Apartheid movement over its involvement in Project Nimbus, a cloud computing collaboration between Israel's military and tech titans Amazon and Google criticized for enabling Israeli human rights crimes.
In March, Kitchen published a piece on his Kitchen Counter blog, titled "On the Deportation of Dissent." The post highlighted the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident and former Columbia University student and Palestine solidarity activist arrested on March 8 by plainclothes Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers in front of his pregnant wife in New York before being transferred to New Jersey and then to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement lockup in Louisiana, where he missed the birth of his son.
Khalil, who the Trump administration admits has committed no crime, is being held as a political prisoner under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests. Numerous foreign nationals, including green-card holders, have been targeted under the law for criticizing Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza and U.S. complicity.
Kitchen wrote:
The goal here is the deportation of dissent. In an executive order 10 days ago, the Trump administration promised to "go on offense to enforce law and order" by "cancel[ing] the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses." This is a mode of speech suppression that seeks to physically remove the undesirable elements it can, and, through fear, ensure silence in everyone else.
To my mind the arrest of a student on utterly specious grounds by a neo-fascist state, clearly designed to breed a climate of fear among students, calls for the resignation of a university president. That role is untenable so long as it does not involve the ferocious protection of student speech. The same goes for faculty, who last year demonstrated a mixed commitment to the defense of students. The situation requires their concerted action.
"The CBP explicitly said to me, the reason you have been detained is because of your writing on the Columbia student protests," Kitchen toldGuardian Australia on Sunday.
However, a DHS spokesperson denied Kitchen's assertion, telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that he was denied entry to the United States "because he gave false information" regarding alleged drug use on his Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application.
"Lawful travelers have nothing to fear from [vetting] measures, which are designed to protect our nation's security," the spokesperson added. "However, those intending to enter the U.S. with fraudulent purposes or malicious intent are offered the following advice: Don't even try."
Kitchen told Guardian Australia that he had previously indicated on an ESTA application that he had not done drugs, but admitted under interrogation that he legally purchased marijuana in New York state and partook while abroad.
"There's certainly not proof of me doing drugs on my phone," he said. "But this is a method of interrogation that uses entrapment."
Kitchen added that "in retrospect, I should have... accepted immediate deportation," but that he was "too compliant, too trustful, too hopeful" at the start of his detention.
Free press advocates said Kitchen's detention and removal was yet another sign that "we are becoming a police state," as well as a reason "to avoid the United States as a holiday destination like the bubonic plague," and, as the hacktivist collective Anonymous called it, "a harsh lesson in digital footprints."
"This moment calls for bold public funding, strong private sector leadership, and a shared commitment to making HIV prevention accessible, affordable, and a cornerstone of our national response," said one campaigner.
By Jessica Corbett
While joining Gilead Sciences in welcoming the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Wednesday approval of a six-month shot that CEO Daniel O'Day said "offers a very real opportunity to help end the HIV epidemic," public health advocates this week have expressed concern that Big Pharma greed could impede access to lenacapavir.
Gilead announced that the FDA has approved lenacapavir—which will be sold under the brand name Yeztugo—as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV in adults and adolescents weighing at least 77 lbs., "making it the first and only twice-yearly option available in the United States for people who need or want PrEP."
Responding in a statement, Save HIV Funding campaign manager Maxx Boykin said that "the FDA's approval of lenacapavir for HIV prevention has the potential to be a pivotal moment for the broader fight to end HIV. It's a reminder that prevention must be a national priority, backed by serious investment and political will."
"Ending the epidemic requires equal focus on prevention and treatment, delivered through equitable, community-driven systems," Boykin continued. "This moment calls for bold public funding, strong private sector leadership, and a shared commitment to making HIV prevention accessible, affordable, and a cornerstone of our national response."
"If lenacapavir has any chance of becoming a viable choice for people who could benefit from PrEP, the price will have to be low enough that safety net providers can afford to procure it."
The Save HIV Funding campaign was launched in 2023 by multiple groups, including PrEP4All, to fight proposed cuts to federal funds. PrEP4All senior policy consultant Amy Killelea and executive director Jeremiah Johnson wrote Tuesday at Health Affairs that "lenacapavir's PrEP approval comes four years after the first long-acting injectable product for PrEP—a once-every-two-month injection made by ViiV and sold under the brand name Apretude—hit the market. Despite a lot of fanfare about its ability to change the HIV prevention landscape, Apretude sales have been fairly anemic since its launch."
"This likely reflects the many barriers to PrEP access, including provider willingness to prescribe PrEP, individual awareness about HIV risk, and complicated procurement and financing considerations for provider-administered products," they explained. "Whether the fact that lenacapavir requires far fewer provider visits than Apretude will make it a better option for people remains to be seen. But regardless of whether lenacapavir truly disrupts the PrEP landscape, it provides another important tool in the HIV prevention toolbox and an option that could help anyone who might struggle with adherence to a daily pill regimen."
The FDA approval comes as congressional Republicans push a budget reconciliation package that would deprive millions of Americans of health insurance, and "given the anticipated high price tag of lenacapavir, any coverage losses could impede access," Killelea and Johnson warned. "The launch of lenacapavir also comes amidst an intentional hollowing out of governmental public health programs by the Trump administration."
"Gilead's charitable assistance programs cannot alone ensure that PrEP is available and accessible to the people who need it most," they stressed. "If lenacapavir has any chance of becoming a viable choice for people who could benefit from PrEP, the price will have to be low enough that safety net providers can afford to procure it. This is particularly true for provider-administered products, which are often covered as a medical benefit."
The Guardian reported Tuesday that Gilead "has not yet made the price of the drug public, but it has been estimated... that it is likely to be on par with current preventive medications at about $25,000... a year. As a treatment for people already living with HIV, it costs about $39,000 annually."
However, the "HIV-ending" injection could "be made for only $25... a year—including a 30% profit margin," the newspaper noted, citing an analysis from the University of Liverpool and others. The researchers found that "lenacapavir could be mass produced for $35 to $46 a year, if there was annual demand for 2 million doses, falling to $25 at scaled-up production of 5 million to 10 million doses each year."
The watchdog Public Citizen also highlighted that study in a Wednesday statement:
The closest drug to an HIV vaccine, lenacapavir has shown 99% efficacy in preventing HIV infection, but its manufacturer, Gilead, is overcharging for the drug and gripping tightly to its patents in certain countries.
Patented in many Latin American countries, lenacapavir as an HIV treatment is priced at more than $40,000 (U.S. dollars) per year, but experts estimate lenacapavir's production (plus a margin for profit) could price the drug as low as $25 with process improvements and an increase in demand...
Public Citizen has been working with 100 health groups across Latin America to overcome the patent barrier, issuing multiple compulsory license requests and calling on governments to take action to make long-acting PrEP more accessible.
Public Citizen Access to Medicines Director Peter Maybarduk said that "the world has an historic opportunity to end AIDS," a condition caused by HIV, but "that requires confronting the triple threat of funding cuts, stigma, and pharma power."
Reporting on the FDA approval Wednesday, The Associated Press pointed out that "global efforts at ending the HIV pandemic by 2030 have stalled. There still are more than 30,000 new infections in the U.S. each year and about 1.3 million worldwide."
The youth-led group is seeking to mobilize its millions of members to elect climate champions and partner with unions for an eventual general strike.
By Stephen Prager
In response to a wave of increasingly authoritarian actions by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, the Sunrise Movement is launching a sweeping new campaign to challenge him.
On Wednesday, the youth-led climate group announced the "End the Oligarchy, Save Our Futures" initiative, which aims to mobilize millions of people against the Trump administration and its backers in the fossil fuel industry. The campaign will begin with a virtual event Wednesday at 8:30 pm ET.
In an op-ed for Common Dreams, Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, described the urgency of the campaign.
" Donald Trump and his cronies are waging war on the American people," she said. "Trump deployed the National Guard to aid his mass abduction of undocumented immigrants. A U.S. senator was handcuffed and thrown to the ground for asking the Trump regime a basic question. Meanwhile, as the Atlantic hurricane season kicked off, Trump gutted climate rules and announced his intention to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Sunrise's campaign comes on the heels of a weekend of nationwide "No Kings" protests, which mobilized millions of Americans against Trump's military parade and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s lawless behavior in Los Angeles. With more than 4 million active members, Sunrise will hope to build on that momentum to "villainize Big Oil for knowingly fueling the climate crisis while raking in billions in profit."
They will campaign for states to pass "Polluters Pay" laws, which require fossil fuel companies that have fueled the climate crisis to contribute to superfunds that pay for disaster recovery and clean energy infrastructure. New York and Vermont have passed these superfund laws and at least 10 other states have had them introduced. However, an executive order signed by Trump at the urging of the fossil fuel industry in April ordered the Justice Department to halt their enforcement.
Sunrise is also looking to longer-term goals of building the political power of the U.S. environmental and labor movements.
Another goal is to campaign for a new generation of legislators who recognize the severity of the climate crisis to take office in 2026. Sunrise has not yet released its endorsements for the coming election cycle, but past names have included Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Greg Casar (D-Texas).
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a proponent of ending taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil, will be among the speakers to kick off the virtual campaign on Wednesday.
"Climate disasters are devastating working people around the country—destroying homes and pushing people into crushing debt. It’s far past time that Big Oil be held accountable," Khanna said.
Sunrise's campaign will also include "climate strikes" in response to key events throughout the next four years. They hope to align their campaign with the timeline laid out by Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers, who has urged other unions around the country to align their contracts with UAW's in preparation for a national general strike on May 1, 2028.
"We intend to make sure millions of students are ready to join workers in demanding an overhaul of our political and economic system so that it finally works for everyday people," Shiney-Ajay said. "It’s a bold plan, but if we pull it off, it will change the course of history. It’s going to require all of us stepping up."
The pro-war resolution came as AIPAC and its allies ramped up a pressure campaign urging Democrats to support Israel's unlawful attacks.
By Jake Johnson
Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California faced backlash Wednesday for leading a resolution expressing support for Israel's unprovoked and illegal assault on Iran, which risks plunging the region into a full-blown war as the Trump administration weighs military attacks of its own.
Sherman introduced the resolution Tuesday alongside Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and 14 cosponsors, including Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.).
The resolution praises Israel's attacks on Iran, characterizing them as "preemptive and proportional strikes" that "advance the vital United States national security interest in a nuclear-free Iran."
The measure also "mourns the 24 Israelis killed and 590 Israelis wounded" by Iran's retaliatory attacks, but does not mention the more than 580 Iranians killed during the first five days of Israel's assault.
In a scathing statement released Wednesday, National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action condemned the Sherman-Tenney resolution as "absolutely reckless and repugnant" and argued that "no congressperson should be supportive of this one-sided resolution that provides U.S. endorsement of a destructive war of aggression that has undermined American interests, including U.S. diplomatic efforts on Iran's nuclear program."
NIAC Action refuted the resolution's claim that Israel's strikes have been narrowly targeted, noting that they "have leveled apartment buildings in Iran that have killed dozens of civilians, have led to car bombs in Tehran, and killed women and children—including some who have demonstrated against the Iranian government."
"This was not a 'preemptive strike,'" the group said. "Israel did not preempt any imminent threat, but did preempt another round of nuclear negotiations aimed at resolving the nuclear crisis peacefully."
"We urge lawmakers to call on the leads of this irresponsible resolution to retract it and instead debate the critical issue that matters—whether the U.S. is going to enter this reckless war of aggression, or whether it will play a productive role and help bring this war to an end," NIAC Action added.
Sherman's resolution in support of Israel's assault on Iran came amid bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate to prevent U.S. President Donald Trump from wading into the war without congressional approval.
Those efforts have gained the support of dozens of lawmakers in both chambers, but they are running up against an increasingly fierce lobbying push by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which—according to new reporting—has been pressuring Democratic lawmakers to publicly back Israel's war on Iran.
Drop Site and The American Prospectjointly reported Thursday that one lawmaker "relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups" calling for a statement declaring that they "stand with Israel" in its war on Iran.
"According to a review of member statements at their congressional websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages saying explicitly that they 'stand with Israel,' or some close variation thereof," the outlets reported. "Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel without using the magic words 'stand with Israel' precisely, but they leave no doubt as to the member's support. And 16 others express 'soft' support for Israel, without quite the same inflammatory language."
The outlets noted that "three statements have been held up by AIPAC in particular, according to sources familiar with the situation, as models for others to follow. Those are from Reps. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), and George Whitesides (D-Calif.). All are 'frontline' members who had relatively close elections in 2024."
Sherman, a co-chair of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, is another Democratic House member who issued a statement supporting Israel's strikes on Iran, claiming that "Iran was extremely close to several nuclear bombs"—an assertion contradicted by U.S. intelligence agencies and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Activist David Hogg, who briefly served as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and others are calling for primary challenges against any Democrats who support war with Iran.
"Democrats must be united against Trump and his war," Hogg wrote on social media earlier this week. "We can't fuck this up."
"Trump's presidency is a vehicle for billionaires to loot the government and line their own pockets, while working people bear the cost," said one advocate.
By Julia Conley
Climate action, pro-democracy, and other civil society groups have warned for months that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are intent on cutting essential programs that millions of Americans rely on while providing the richest households and corporations with at least $5 trillion in tax cuts and other benefits.
But while tech CEO Elon Musk has been highly visible since President Donald Trump took office and selected him to spearhead the administration's slashing of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—an advisory board Musk has since left—other billionaires who are among the top people set to cash in from Trump's policies are less known to the public, even as they wield considerable influence over corporate regulations, privatization, and right-wing attacks on renewable energy.
In a report released Tuesday, the grassroots group Popular Democracy in Action details how six of the top beneficiaries of Trump's assault on social services and his xenophobic, pro-corporate, anti-science policies are cashing in while people across the U.S. struggle with the rising cost of living; fear the administration's mass deportation campaign; and brace for cuts to Medicaid, education, and Social Security.
Along with household names like Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—a former Trump critic—the report, titled Trump's Corporate Oligarchs, points to fossil fuel billionaire Harold G. Hamm, founder and chair of Continental Resources, as someone who has spent years working "behind the scenes to advance oil and gas interests."
Hamm is not among the more than 10 billionaires who have nabbed powerful positions within Trump's administration—making his Cabinet the richest in U.S. history, with a collective net worth of $460 billion. But with close ties to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Hamm has pushed to undo former President Joe Biden's fossil fuel regulations within the Inflation Reduction Act and urged Trump to fast-track drilling permits, likely harming poor and rural communities that are disproportionately used for fossil fuel extraction.
Last year, it was Hamm who organized a dinner at Trump's Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where the then-presidential candidate allegedly promised 20 oil and gas executives he would repeal environmental regulations if they raised $1 billion for his campaign.
Hamm's company reported over $714 million in tax savings in 2018 from Trump's so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which included the corporate tax cuts that the GOP now seeks to make permanent—while taxpayers pay more than $20 billion per year toward fossil fuel subsidies, putting their own communities at risk from climate disasters.
Hamm and Trump's other wealthy donors are able to benefit directly from their chosen candidate's policies—to the detriment of the American public—"because the U.S. is currently functioning as an oligarchy: a government where a small group of powerful, wealthy people are calling the shots," reads the report.
George Zoley is another lesser-known oligarch who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trump's campaigns and is now reaping the rewards as the private prison corporation he founded, GEO Group, benefits directly from the president's mass deportation campaign.
Zoley told shareholders shortly after Trump was reelected in November that the coming anti-immigration crackdown would present an "unprecedented opportunity" for GEO Group, which provides 40% of the beds used for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and is the largest provider of ICE transportation services.
The company was also awarded a $1 billion, 15-year contract to open and run the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey.
"GEO Group is incentivized by profit to be a willing and enthusiastic partner in the Trump administration's mass incarceration,
detention, and deportation plans," reads the report. "GEO Group has been and will continue to be a key force behind the targeting and criminalization of poor, working-class, marginalized communities—including immigrants."
Trump's anti-immigration agenda is also being partially fueled by big data firm Palantir, co-founded by another of the oligarchs profiled by Popular Democracy in Action: Peter Thiel, a former mentor of Vice President JD Vance who, despite publicly criticizing Trump during his first term, provided "mission-critical" digital profiling tools to ICE to help track immigrants and conduct raids.
Thiel's "anti-democratic, libertarian philosophy" also underpinned the Trump administration and DOGE's work "dismantling federal agencies, attacking diversity and equity programs, pushing deregulation, and dismantling public aid."
Despite his past criticism of Trump, Thiel's often secretive firm is projected to report more than $2.6 billion in revenue from government contracts in 2025 as Palantir provides support to the president's mass deportation agenda.
"Trump's presidency is a vehicle for billionaires to loot the government and line their own pockets, while working people bear the cost," Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of Popular Democracy in Action, said in a statement. "These cuts to Medicare, housing, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits, and immigrant protections aren't accidents—they're part of a calculated scheme to turn public suffering into private profit."
The report names Musk, the world's richest person with a net worth of $389.4 billion, as the top beneficiary of the Trump administration, even though the Tesla CEO has officially parted ways with the White House.
After spending $235 million to help Trump get elected, in addition to wielding unprecedented influence over the administration, Musk is poised to benefit from billions of dollars in government contracts and foreign deals for his Starlink satellite service—all while benefiting from Trump's tax cuts and pushing to gut the social safety net.
The report also highlights Bezos, who has been accused of censoringThe Washington Post's coverage of Trump and the 2024 election, as a top beneficiary of the president's second term. Bezos' space technology company, Blue Origin, was awarded a $2.3 billion contract in April, and he has pledged to "help" Trump as he moves toward "reducing regulation"—including by gutting top worker protection agencies and placing low-income workers at Amazon in harm's way.
Popular Democracy in Action also highlighted corporate landlord Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Big Pharma giant Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks. Both have benefited from Trump's tax cuts, while Schwarzman has pushed for corporate deregulation and fought against protections for renters. Ricks was a major opponent of the Inflation Reduction Act's Medicare drug price negotiations program, and benefited recently when Trump "signed a healthcare executive order that will create longer delays before Medicare can negotiate certain drug prices," making healthcare more expensive for seniors while raising Eli Lilly's profits.
"In a representative democracy, elected officials are supposed to respond to the priorities and interests of the people," reads the report. "Trump's 'oligarchs' are billionaires who are influencing political decision-making in order to increase their wealth."
"The same cheerleaders for past bloodbaths strut around advocating yet more slaughter as though recent history never happened."
By Jake Johnson
The United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, is once again barreling headlong toward a war of choice in the Middle East, one cheered on by many of the same hawks who enthusiastically supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
The buildup to a possibly imminent U.S. attack on Iran bears striking similarities to the propaganda campaign that preceded the Iraq invasion, with advocates of American intervention claiming—falsely, according to U.S. intelligence and international inspectors—that the Iranian government is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, and that regime change is a necessary and desirable outcome.
The resemblance has not been lost on those steadfastly warning against U.S. involvement in Israel's illegal assault on Iran, which has thus far killed more than 580 people and intensified fears of all-out war in the region.
"The same cheerleaders for past bloodbaths strut around advocating yet more slaughter as though recent history never happened, while opponents of dropping bombs on terrified civilians are once more smeared as dangerous extremists," Guardian columnist Owen Jones wrote Wednesday. "The actual mad men are those in power. And unless they finally face a reckoning, the abyss awaits."
David Vine, a political anthropologist and board member of the Costs of War Project, wrote for Responsible Statecraft earlier this week that "the unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran is the 2003 Iraq War 2.0, except it has the potential to be far, far more catastrophic than the absolute catastrophe that was Iraq."
"Like President George W. Bush's 2003 war on Iraq," wrote Vine, "the war on Iran is an unprovoked, illegal, offensive, unilateral war of aggression, potentially aimed at regime change, and sold to the public based on lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction."
This time around, the lies have been echoed by a president who campaigned on a pledge to "return the world to peace" and keep the U.S. out of conflicts overseas. On Tuesday, Trump publicly rejected the assessment of his handpicked top intelligence official, telling reporters that he believes Iran was "very close to having" a nuclear weapon, a false claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been peddling for decades.
"I don't care what she said," Trump declared, brushing aside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's March testimony before Congress that Iran "is not building a nuclear weapon."
"The United States must not be dragged into another of Netanyahu's wars—not militarily or financially."
Assessments from U.S. intelligence agencies and the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have not stopped rabidly pro-war lawmakers such as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from pushing Trump to wade into the conflict with military force.
"Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat," Graham said in an appearance on Fox News. "If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations."
But the march to war with Iran has also drawn significant opposition, bolstered by fresh opinion polls showing that a majority of the American public—including those who voted for Trump in last year's presidential election—oppose U.S. military action against Iran.
In both the House and the Senate, bipartisan efforts are underway to prevent Trump from attacking Iran without congressional approval, and Democratic leaders who have been mealy-mouthed in their responses to the escalating crisis have faced swift backlash.
After Democratic Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he believed "Congress and Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our authority" on the matter, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif)—who is co-sponsoring a war powers resolution in the House to prevent Trump from launching an attack on Iran—asked: "What in the world does this mean Sen. Schumer?"
"This is why your numbers are toxic with our base," added Khanna. "They want us to be the anti-war party again."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of new legislation in the Senate that would bar Trump from using federal funds for an unauthorized attack on Iran, said in a video posted online Tuesday that "supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake."
"The United States must not be dragged into another of Netanyahu's wars—not militarily or financially," said Sanders. "The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: There can be no offensive use of military force—against Iran or any other country—without an explicit authorization from Congress. No such authorization exists, and any U.S. involvement would therefore be illegal."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) also spoke out against those rushing the country to war in an appearance on CNN Tuesday night.
"I do not think there's support in this country for the United States to go to war again in the Middle East," Murphy said. "And I would remind the president that he can't take any offensive action against Iran without coming to Congress first. He has no leeway here. The constitution requires him to get an authorization of military force from Congress."
As Israel and Iran traded attacks for the sixth consecutive day on Wednesday, Trump confirmed to reporters that he's considering a U.S. strike on Iran. But in a characteristically rambling way, he also left the door open to a diplomatic resolution, something that Israeli leaders have openly rejected.
"I may do it," the president said of U.S. military intervention. "I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."
"Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?" Trump asked, ignoring the fact that the U.S. and Iran were in the midst of nuclear talks when Israel attacked last week.
Asked whether it's too late for negotiations, Trump replied, "Nothing's too late."
The president's comments came a day after he demanded "unconditional surrender" from the Iranian government, drawing a sharp rebuke from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"The U.S. president threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him," said Khamenei in a televised address on Wednesday. "They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn’t frightened by such threats."
Khamenei said that "the Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage."
"The U.S. entering in this matter is 100% to its own detriment," he added. "The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter."
Anti-war voices in the U.S. have also warned of the potentially devastating human consequences of a possible war with Iran—with organizers urging Americans to lobby their members of Congress to put a stop to any war against Iran before it begins.
"As always, it will not be the U.S. foreign policy elites who end up paying the terrible price of another war of choice, but American service members and families along with countless civilians thousands of miles away," Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.
"This is potentially a once-in-a-generation moment that could impact our country's trajectory as the American wars in Vietnam and Iraq did," Okail added. "Politicians and other decisionmakers should remember the lessons of those fateful conflicts, stand firmly against militarism, and press for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.