Saturday, March 14, 2026
■ The Week in Review
Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Elizabeth Warren make the case for the urgent ouster of President Donald Trump's Defense Secretary.
By Jon Queally • Mar 13, 2026
“Pete Hegseth needs to be fired—immediately,” argues US Sen. Chris Van Hollen in a video statement posted Thursday night alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who also backs the demand. Their joint call arrived as global outrage mounts over the bombing of a Iranian school on Feb. 28 that killed upwards of 175 civilians, mostly young children.
Warren cited preliminary findings of a Pentagon report out this week that determined the US was the highly likely culprit behind the school massacre in the southeastern city of Minab, she noted, “killing mostly little girls between the ages of seven and 14.”
Human rights groups have condemned the bombing of the school—which had happened on the very first day of Trump’s unprovoked attack on Iran—as a possible “war crime” that demands independent investigation. Trump, for his part, has repeatedly lied about the bombing, claiming it was Iran who bombed the school, despite having access to internal intelligence assessments that appear to say otherwise.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Wednesday said there was more than enough evidence to conclude that the US was behind the attack, with reports bubbling up from inside the Pentagon only helping to confirm what outside analysts had determined. “Trump should be impeached. Hegseth should be fired,” Tlaib said. “And the administration must be held accountable in international courts for their heinous war crimes.”
For Van Hollen and Warren, the massacre in Minab is only the latest and most gruesome example of the US military’s bloodthirsty and careless conduct under Hegseth, whose time at the Pentagon has been marked by controversy and accusations of human rights abuses, national security blunders, and violations of international law as a matter of policy.
“We had ‘Signalgate,’ where he put out troops at risk,” says Van Hollen in the video, a reference to Hegseth using a public encryption communication tool to share national security details of a military operation that had yet to be carried out.
“We had him blowing up ships in the Caribbean,” he continues, attacks that have killed over 160 people and been called nothing short of murder by human rights experts. “We had them targeting defenseless swimmers” who survived some of those attacks, said Van Hollen.
“That’s right,” Warren interjects in the video, “with no accountability” for any of that behavior. On top of all that, Van Hollen adds, Hegseth has “no idea what he’s doing in this war in Iran. And now an American missile hit an Iranian school, killing about 150 innocent school kids.”
Hegseth has aggressively denounced restrictive “rules of engagement” for the military—calling such guardrails “stupid” and disparaging what he has termed “woke” warfare. As The New York Times details Friday, Hegseth’s entire career has been colored by his criticism of what he views as the restrictive nature of rules designed to curb atrocities. Now serving as Secretary of Defense, he has been empowered to put his theories into action:
[Hegseth] has tried to reshape Pentagon culture, reveling in lethality with “no apologies, no hesitation.” He has portrayed this approach as a “warrior ethos,” one that is tough and manly.
He came up as an Army infantry officer and, as he wrote in his 2024 memoir “The War on Warriors,” loathed strict rules of engagement imposed to minimize risk to civilians, seeing heightened standards for when his platoon could open fire as putting soldiers at greater risk on the battlefield. He blamed judge advocate general lawyers, or JAGs, for such rules — even though it is commanders, not lawyers, who issue them.
Mr. Hegseth later continued that line of thinking as a Fox News contributor and host and as an advocate for U.S. service members charged with war crimes. In his 2024 book, he questioned the need to obey the Geneva Conventions and derisively referred to military lawyers as “jagoffs.”
In the video with Van Hollen, Warren says the key reason behind the call for his immediate ouster has to do with Hegseth’s hostility toward mechanisms designed to mitigate “civilian harm” during war time or other military operations.
As legislators, Van Hollen and Warren describe how they helped put in place stronger rules to prevent civilian harm. “Whenever the military is thinking about an attack,” says Warren, “where there are civilians in the area and innocent people could get harmed, it’s how to think through ‘What are the risks? Are there ways to minimize the risks? Have we checked and double checked?’”
“But what did Pete Hegseth do?” asks Warren. To which Van Hollen answers: “Hegseth came in and he dismantled the whole system. He said they were ‘stupid rules of engagement.’ But we know rules of engagement are intended to prevent civilian harm, they’re intended to prevent war crimes.”
“Political deepfakes are a profound threat to our democracy, because there is no realistic way for voters to understand they are seeing fake representations,” said the co-president of Public Citizen.
By Stephen Prager • Mar 12, 2026
In the latest example of Republicans using artificially generated deepfakes to attack their opponents, the Senate GOP’s official social media account has posted an attack ad depicting a synthetic version of Texas Democrat James Talarico, a state representative and US Senate candidate.
The video, posted on Wednesday to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) page on X, portrays a frighteningly realistic approximation of Talarico’s (D-50) appearance and voice.
The state representative, who won the Democratic nomination for Texas’ US Senate seat in a primary earlier this month, is depicted reading an array of old social media posts that the NRSC described as “extreme statements praising transgenderism, twisting Christian beliefs, and advocating for open borders.”
The posts were all real. Talarico did indeed state, following a spate of mass shootings against minorities in 2021, that “radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country.” He also did say that his office had added personal pronouns to official business cards out of respect for transgender Texans, that he believed God was “nonbinary,” and that he was “the only teenage boy at Planned Parenthood’s March for Women’s Lives in 2004.”
However, all of the posts are at least several years—if not more than a decade—old. The video also depicts its AI simulacrum of Talarico smiling and reminiscing fondly about the posts, which he never actually did.
“So true,” he is depicted saying after reading the tweet about “radicalized white men.” “I love this one too,” he says before reading the post about “pronouns.”
Aside from a small, translucent watermark in the bottom-right corner of the video, labeling it “AI Generated,” there is no indication that the video is a fabrication.
While both sides of the aisle have dabbled in the use of AI to attack their opponents, Politico’s Adam Wren has noted that deepfakes were not being deployed equally and have become central to the “approach” of the GOP in campaigns.
In October, after Republicans made a similar video showing a simulated Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) celebrating the government shutdown, Wren noted the frequency with which such tactics were being used by Republican campaigns at both the state and federal level:
Other examples of AI-generated advertising have also come from Republicans. An ad for Mike Braun, now governor of Indiana, last year used AI to fake scenes, without disclosing it. President Donald Trump’s account regularly posts clearly fake videos of the president ridiculing opponents...
The [NRSC] released one hitting Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills as she launched her Senate campaign, and one simulating a Democratic group chat.
Deepfakes have also been deployed heavily by social media accounts for President Donald Trump’s White House to degrade opponents.
Earlier this year, the official account posted a photo of an organizer who’d been arrested during a protest against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), doctored to portray her uncontrollably crying, when actual photos of the event show her appearing stone-faced and stoic while being led away in handcuffs.
While more than half of all US states have legislation regulating the use of AI deepfakes for election-related content, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen has said such content needs to be addressed at the federal level.
The group has called on the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to designate the use of AI for deceptive political messaging as fraudulent misrepresentation and on Congress to pass legislation banning the practice and requiring AI-generated content to be prominently labeled.
Robert Weissman, the co-president of Public Citizen, told Common Dreams that the deepfake of Talarico “is a disgrace and the NRSC should put it down immediately.”
“Political deepfakes are a profound threat to our democracy, because there is no realistic way for voters to understand they are seeing fake representations rather than real video,” Weissman said. “This deepfake has an ‘AI-generated’ watermark, but it’s all but invisible–sort of like an admission of wrongdoing, more than an effort at transparency.”
PENNSYLVANIA: YOU ALREADY KNOW JOHN FETTERMAN NEEDS TO GO!
"Massive civilian casualty incidents like the attack in Minab are not only detrimental to the Iranian people," argued the rest of the Senate Democratic Caucus, "but they also undermine US national security interests."
By Jessica Corbett • Mar 11, 2026
Just a week after Sen. John Fetterman helped Republicans block a war powers resolution intended to halt President Donald Trump and Israel’s assault on Iran, the Pennsylvania Democrat again bucked his own party on Wednesday by not signing on to a letter calling for a probe into an apparent US bombing of a girls’ school in the Iranian city Minab that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
As with the unsuccessful resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Fetterman was the only member of the Senate Democratic Caucus—which includes Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine)—who didn’t endorse the letter to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Fetterman has signaled support for Operation Epic Fury and promoted Trump’s narrative that it’s motivated by preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. During a Tuesday appearance on Newsmax, he claimed that “negotiating treaties” and coordinating with regional allies “never worked,” and wondered why Democrats can’t “agree what’s happened is a very, very positive development for world peace.”
Asked for comment about Democrats’ letter, Fetterman told Reuters that he supports the military operation and “the United States never intentionally targets civilians, including its own citizens, unlike Iran. Everyone agrees it was a tragedy. Everyone agrees on performing a full investigation.”
A spokesperson for Fetterman added that “whether the senator is on a letter or not, he fully stands behind a comprehensive investigation into this tragedy.”
Led by Kaine, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the rest of the caucus began the letter by expressing “grave concern” about the bombing—which paramedics and victims’ relatives have said was a so-called “double-tap” airstrike—and stressing that the 12-day assault “is a war of choice without congressional authorization.”
“Nonetheless, as these military actions continue, the United States and Israel must abide by US and international law, including the law of armed conflict,” they wrote. “There must be a swift investigation into the strikes on this school and any other potential US military actions causing civilian harm, and the findings must be released to the public as soon as possible, along with any measures to pursue accountability.”
“Massive civilian casualty incidents like the attack in Minab are not only detrimental to the Iranian people, who have already suffered so much at the hands of its own government, but they also undermine US national security interests,” the Democrats argued.
The letter cites a Tuesday update from the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency that the war has killed more than 1,245 civilians and injured over 12,000. The Iranian government said earlier this week that the death toll is above 1,300.
The Senate Democrats didn’t just focus on the school; they also sounded the alarm about US and Israeli “use of explosive weapons in major Iranian cities and populated areas,” which has damaged “multiple hospitals, cultural heritage sites, and other critical civilian infrastructure.”
“These civilian harm events are not taking place in a vacuum,” the senators wrote, pointing to Hegseth’s recent remarks that Operation Epic Fury would have “no stupid rules of engagement” and there will be “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
They warned that “this rhetoric only serves to endanger civilians, including American citizens, in the region and around the globe. The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions and bound by international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. These are binding and non-negotiable standards designed to protect innocent human life, and it is unacceptable for the secretary of defense to suggest otherwise.”
“Your comments reflect a broader pattern of policies abandoning the Defense Department’s commitment to minimizing civilian harm in US military operations,” the lawmakers noted, referencing budgetary and personnel cuts, including the removal of senior, nonpartisan judge advocate general officers. “These actions, combined with your comments and the horrific reports of civilian casualties stemming from the war against Iran, suggest the administration has abandoned its duty to protect civilians.”
The senators demanded Hegseth’s responses to a list of questions about the February 28 school strike, compliance with rules to prevent war crimes, the military’s efforts to prevent and mitigate civilian harm, and the use of artificial intelligence no later than March 18.
The Wednesday letter came as the The New York Times reported on the preliminary findings of a Pentagon probe that found the strike on the school in Minab “was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military, which was conducting strikes on an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part.”
It also came as a coalition of peace groups launched a national campaign calling on Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to resign from their leadership roles over their failure to sufficiently fight back “against a war-crazed Trump administration.”
While Hegseth and Trump have so far declined to take responsibility for the school massacre, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)—who supports the US-Israeli war on Iran—has apologized for the bombing at least twice this week, saying: “We made a mistake... I’m just so sorry it happened.”
"Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
By Jake Johnson • Mar 11, 2026
A coalition of peace groups on Wednesday launched a new national campaign calling for the top Democrats in Congress—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—to resign from their leadership roles, citing their failure to sufficiently fight back “against a war-crazed Trump administration.”
The coalition, which includes Peace Action and RootsAction, launched a petition declaring that it is “time for congressional Democrats to replace Schumer and Jeffries with leaders who are willing and able to challenge the runaway militarism that has dragged our country into launching yet another insanely destructive war,” this time against Iran.
“Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have not acted to prevent war on Venezuela or the current war on Iran,” the petition reads. “They worked to delay a vote on Iran until after the war had started, while failing to clearly oppose it before or after the launch of the war. Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine.”
Kevin Martin, president of Peace Action—the largest grassroots peace network in the US—said in a statement that he doubts “at this point whether many people look to Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries for ‘leadership’ in Congress, but we would settle for them getting with the program and representing their base, and the majority of Americans, who want them to stand strongly against Trump’s illegal wars and domestic terror campaigns against the American people.”
“They need to speak out loudly and clearly, and get their caucuses in line, to oppose the upcoming $50 billion or more for Trump’s illegal war of aggression on Iran, and to cut off US weapons to Israel,” said Martin. “Failing to do so will only increase calls for them to step down or be replaced by colleagues who understand where the American people are on these and other critical issues.”
Since the start of the illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran, Schumer and Jeffries have focused largely on procedural objections to the war, the Trump administration’s incompetence, and the president’s failure to clearly articulate his objectives, rather than explicitly opposing the military onslaught.
In an appearance on NBC‘s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Jeffries declined to say whether he would oppose the Trump administration’s expected push for $50 billion in new funding for the unauthorized war on Iran.
“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” Jeffries said, chiding the administration for failing to “make its case as to the rationale or justification for this war of choice in the Middle East.”
Sarah Lazare and Adam Johnson wrote for The Nation last week that “it’s not enough to check the box, to do the bare minimum, to reinforce every argument for war only to balk at the process and ask whether there’s a ‘plan’ for after the myriad war crimes have already been committed.”
“The only way to read this half-hearted response from the Democratic Party leadership,” they argued, “is de facto support.”
"The fusion of war-making and market manipulation by top Trump officials isn't entirely without precedent," said one observer, "but the speed and brazenness does seem new."
By Jake Johnson • Mar 11, 2026
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, was accused on Tuesday of manipulating global markets after he posted a striking claim on social media: The American Navy, he wrote, had “successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing.”
The post on X was deleted minutes later, after “oil prices slid at their steepest pace in years,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The White House press secretary later acknowledged publicly that Wright’s claim was false, and the Energy Department—which has been scrambling to quell mounting fears of a sustained increase in oil prices and broader supply chain chaos stemming from the US-Israeli assault on Iran—threw unnamed staff under the bus, saying they “incorrectly captioned” the post.
“So who just made $100 million dollars shorting oil for the 3 minutes that Chris Wright had that post up?” asked hedge fund manager Spencer Hakimian.
Anti-monopoly researcher Matt Stoller wrote in response to the post and its deletion that “the fusion of war-making and market manipulation by top Trump officials isn’t entirely without precedent, but the speed and brazenness does seem new.”
The debacle also notably drew a reaction from the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who wrote on X that “US officials are posting fake news to manipulate markets.”
“It won’t protect them from inflationary tsunami they’ve imposed on Americans,” wrote Araghchi. “Markets are facing the biggest shortfall in HISTORY: bigger than the Arab Oil Embargo, Iran’s Islamic Revolution, and the Kuwait invasion COMBINED.”
The Strait of Hormuz has become a critical flashpoint of the US-Israeli war on Iran, whose military has threatened to attack vessels that attempt to pass through the route in retaliation for the deadly missile onslaught. An estimated 13 million barrels per day passed through the strait in 2025—roughly 31% of all seaborne crude flows.
“At the beginning of the war we announced, and we announce again, no vessel associated with aggressors against Iran has the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz,” said the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. “If you have doubts, come closer and find out.”
Reuters reported Tuesday that, contrary to Wright’s deleted post, the US Navy has “refused near-daily requests from the shipping industry for military escorts through the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war on Iran, saying the risk of attacks is too high for now.”
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said early Wednesday that a cargo vessel in the strait was “hit by an unknown projectile,” causing a fire onboard and forcing crew members to evacuate.
The report came hours after the US military said it “eliminated multiple Iranian naval vessels,” including “16 minelayers near the Strait of Hormuz.” The announcement followed, by less than two hours, a social media post from President Donald Trump declaring that “we have no reports” of Iran laying mines in the strait.
“If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before,” Trump wrote. “If, on the other hand, they remove what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction!”
After attending a classified briefing on Tuesday, US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote that it was obvious the administration “had no plan” regarding the Strait of Hormuz prior to launching its assault on Iran.
“They don’t know how to get it safely back open,” Murphy wrote. “Which is unforgivable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”
Trump falsely claimed that Iran has “some” highly restricted Tomahawk missiles as additional evidence pointed to US culpability for the deadly strike.
By Brett Wilkins • Mar 10, 2026
As Iranian officials displayed US-marked fragments of a missile believed to have been used in Saturday’s massacre of around 175 mostly school children in Minab, President Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his unfounded claim that Iran carried out the strike.
The president suggested during a press conference at his Trump National Doral Miami resort that Iran may have used a US Tomahawk missile to carry out the February 28 attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab.
Trump falsely claimed that Iran has “some” of the highly restricted cruise missiles after one of them was recorded hitting an Iranian military facility near the school just after Saturday’s strike there.
“A Tomahawk is very generic,” Trump added. “It’s sold to other countries.”
New York Times reporter Shawn McCreesh pressed Trump on his claim, asking, “You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a Tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school on the first day of the war... Why are you the only person saying this?”
Trump replied: “Because I just don’t know enough about it. I think it’s something that I was told is under investigation, but Tomahawks are, are used by others. As you know, numerous other nations have Tomahawks. They buy them from us.”
Iran has no Tomahawks, which are not “generic.” Originally developed by General Dynamics and now manufactured by Raytheon, the BGM‑109 Tomahawk is a specific long-range cruise missile designed and produced in the United States. Only two other countries—Australia and the United Kingdom—are known to have Tomahawks in their arsenals, although Japan and the Netherlands have also agreed to buy them.
The US also does not sell weaponry to the Iranian government—with the extraordinary exception of the Iran-Contra Affair, in which the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran in order to fund anti-communist Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
Trump’s Monday remarks followed his Saturday comments to reporters aboard Air Force One, where he said that the bombing “was done by Iran.”
However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was accompanying Trump, notably declined to back Trump’s claim, saying only that “we’re certainly investigating” the strike.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz also did not endorse the president’s assertion, telling ABC News’ Martha Raddatz Sunday that he would “leave that to the investigators to determine.”
Waltz—a former Army Special Forces officer who served in Afghanistan—also told NBC News’ Meet the Press Sunday that “we never deliberately attack civilians.”
More than 400,000 civilians in over half a dozen countries have been killed in US-led wars since 9/11, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Hundreds of Iranian civilians have been killed by US and Israeli bombing since February 28. Israeli airstrikes have also killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians during the same period.
During Monday’s press conference, Trump said that he is “willing to live with” whatever the probe into the Minab school strike shows.
A preliminary US intelligence assessment reportedly concluded that the United States is “likely” responsible for the strike, although a probe is ongoing.
On Monday, the New York Times published photos of fragments purportedly from a missile used in the school strike, which were marked with the names of multiple companies that produce Tomahawk components, a unique Department of Defense contract number, and “Made in USA.” Another remnant is marked SDL ANTENNA, a key satellite data link component of Tomahawk missiles.
Paramedics and victims’ relatives said the school bombing was a so-called “double-tap” airstrike—a common tactic used by US, Israeli, and Russian forces in which attackers bomb a target and then follow up with a second strike meant to kill survivors and first responders.
If carried out by the US, the Minab school strike would be one of the deadliest US civilian massacres in modern times, ranking with the bombing of a Baghdad bomb shelter during the 1991 Gulf War—which killed more than 400 people—and the March 2017 slaughter of at least 105 people in an apartment building in Mosul, Iraq during Trump’s “war of annihilation” against the so-called Islamic State.
Trump’s claim that Iran may have bought a US missile whose sale is restricted to just a handful of close allies and used it to bomb its own school prompted worldwide ridicule.
US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the upper chamber floor Tuesday that “Iran doesn’t have Tomahawk missiles, Donald Trump!”
“The claim is beyond asinine,” he continued. “He says whatever pops into his head no matter what the truth is. And we all know he lies, but on something as formidable as this, it’s appalling.”
“Trump is lying through his teeth,” Schumer added.
Barry Andrews, an Irish politician who serves as a Member of the European Parliament for the Dublin constituency, said on X that Trump’s “latest use of the ‘big lie’ tactic... was to claim that Iran somehow possesses US-made Tomahawk missiles and fired upon its own girls school.”
“Such blatant lies are meant to distract,” Andrews added. “He knows the world will move on.”
New Yorker cartoonist Mark Thompson quipped, “How Iran fired a Tomahawk missile at their own school is beyond me, but President Trump wouldn’t lie to us.”
Reza Nasri, an international law expert at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said on X that “Trump claims that Iran somehow got its hands on a US Tomahawk cruise missile and used it to bomb its own elementary school.”
“Ask him how Iran could possibly have obtained such missiles—and how it allegedly launched one, given that Tomahawks are typically fired from naval platforms, primarily warships and submarines,” Nasri added. “Did Iran get its hands on US warships and submarines too?”
"We’re entering an even more dangerous moment," said foreign policy expert Matt Duss.
By Brad Reed • Mar 10, 2026
President Donald Trump may believe that his unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran is “very complete, pretty much,” but one foreign policy expert thinks that is highly wishful thinking.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), argued in a Tuesday social media post that the negative consequences of Trump’s attack on Iran are just starting to be felt, with no option for a quick ending.
“We’re entering an even more dangerous moment,” Duss wrote, “as the stupidity of this war becomes undeniable even to its supporters, who realize they’re about to be revealed as morons yet again and are desperate to turn this into something they can spin as a win. Their only option is escalation.”
Shortly before Duss offered his analysis of the situation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a news conference in which he dialed up belligerent rhetoric against Iran while declaring the war “a laser-focused, maximum-authority mission, delivered with overwhelming and unrelenting precision.”
“No hesitation, no half measures,” Hegseth continued. “As President Trump declared yesterday, we’re crushing the enemy in an overwhelming display of technical skill and military force.”
Hegseth’s bluster did not impress Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who vowed on Tuesday to drag Hegseth before the Senate to answer questions about the war, which the president launched early on a Saturday morning without any authorization from the US Congress.
“I’m joining together with my allies in the United States Senate to use the leverage we have to force a debate and a vote in the Senate on the authorization of war,” Murphy said. “I think if the Senate took that vote, it would fail, and that would allow us to stop this illegal, disastrous war in Iran.”
Murphy went on to note that “the Constitution is crystal clear” that Trump does not have the power to unilaterally declare war, even though that is precisely what he did less than two weeks ago.
“You should be furious about that,” Murphy said, “because this is maybe the most dangerous thing a president can do: Send your sons and daughters to die overseas without your consent.”
Murphy’s statement earned kudos from Duss, who promoted his message on social media.
“This is the way,” wrote Duss. “No business as usual.”
Critics blasted Trump as "sadistic" for justifying attack on unarmed Iranian ship, which killed over 100 sailors, because it was "more fun" for US forces than capturing it.
By Stephen Prager • Mar 10, 2026
President Donald Trump said the US Navy chose to sink an Iranian frigate, killing more than 100 sailors last week, because it was “more fun” than capturing the vessel, even though the ship posed no threat.
Though death tolls vary, Iran’s state media organization, the Islamic Republic News Organization, reported on Sunday that 104 crew members were killed in the attack and that 32 others were injured when a US submarine torpedoed the Iranian warship IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean on March 4 as it departed from the Milan Peace 2026 naval drills hosted in India.
The Dena was more than 2,000 miles away from the Persian Gulf when it was attacked, far from the hostilities unleashed last weekend when the US and Israel launched a war against Iran. Contradicting US claims, Iranian and Indian officials have said it was not armed.
In what political commentator Adam Schwarz described as “the most blasé admission of a war crime by a US president in history,” Trump on Monday casually recounted the US Navy’s decision to attack the ship before a gathering of Republicans at a Congressional Institute event, a GOP-aligned nonprofit retreat organizer.
He suggested that the Navy blew the boat up not to neutralize a threat, but purely for its own sake.
After making the exaggerated boast that Iran’s navy is “gone” following aggressive US bombing, Trump said at first he “got a little upset” with the military brass who ordered the sinking of the Dena, which he said they described as a “top-of-the-line” vessel.
Trump said he asked: “Why don’t we just capture the ship? We could have used it. Why did we sink them?”
He said that an unspecified official told him, “It’s more fun to sink them.”
As the crowd laughed, Trump went on, chuckling himself: “They like sinking them better. They say it’s safer to sink them. I guess it’s probably true.”
Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, described the ship as operating in a purely “ceremonial” role and said it was “unloaded” and “unarmed” at the time of the attack last week.
Rahul Bedi, an independent defense analyst in India, told the Associated Press that while the ship may have used some limited non-offensive ammunition during naval exercises, drill protocol requires “the participating platforms to be unarmed.”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has claimed the vessel was a “predator ship,” while the US Indo-Pacific Command has said claims that the ship was unarmed are “false.” However, it has provided no evidence that it posed a threat at the time of the attack.
The attack itself was likely legal under the rules of naval warfare, even if the ship was unarmed, though its ethical and tactical justification has been called into question.
“A military ship might be a lawful target,” Phyllis Bennis, the co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ New Internationalism Project told Common Dreams. “But firing on any ship—any people, anywhere—for ‘fun’ represents the kind of immoral depravity that this White House is infamous for.”
Bennis added that “failing to do everything possible to rescue those aboard is certainly a war crime,” as the Second Geneva Convention requires militaries to take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick.
The Dena’s 32 survivors, as well as dozens of dead bodies, had to be pulled from the water by a Sri Lankan joint rescue operation following a distress call. The survivors were quickly rushed to a local hospital in Galle City.
Hegseth has previously come under fire for reportedly ordering a second strike on shipwrecked sailors who survived the bombing of an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean.
Many have described that attack on September 2 as an exceptionally blatant war crime in a broadly illegal campaign that has extrajudicially killed at least 156 people.
In carrying out its war against Iran, Hegseth has emphasized that the US would not abide by what he called “stupid rules of engagement.”
Thousands of civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, and residential areas, have reportedly been attacked by US and Israeli strikes, according to the Iranian Red Crescent.
As of Monday, Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian said at least 1,255 people have been killed, including 200 children and 11 healthcare workers.
Though it may have still technically been legal, journalist Mark Ames, the co-host of the geopolitics podcast Radio War Nerd, argued that attacking a ship that posed no threat shows that Trump is “cowardly scum” who “gets his kicks killing those who can’t fight back.”
“The ship was unarmed. That’s why Trump and Hegseth chose to murder them,” Ames wrote on social media. “Tormenting those who can’t fight back is its own sadistic pleasure.”
Bennis added that even if attacking the ship itself was lawful in a vacuum, it took place before a backdrop of brazen “illegality.”
“This entire shocking episode represents a clear US violation of what the Nuremberg trials identified as the ‘supreme international crime’: the crime of aggression,” she said. “The US had no legal right to go to war against Iran. The [United Nations] Security Council had not authorized the use of force, and there was no ‘armed attack’ from Iran against the US that required immediate self-defense.
“Without either of those, the UN Charter is very clear that no country may attack another country,” she continued. “To do so, as the Nuremberg judges found, constitutes the crime of aggression—the ultimate crime.”
NOTE: This piece has been updated following publication to include additional comments.
"Americans can't afford their groceries, they can't afford their medicine, they can't afford the cost of living, and yet we're dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran," said one Senate Democrat.
By Jake Johnson • Mar 10, 2026
The Trump administration is quietly pursuing a regulatory change that would strip federal nutrition assistance from an estimated 6 million low-income Americans—including nearly two million children—as it spends billions on an illegal, open-ended war on Iran that has killed more than a thousand people and plunged the global economy into chaos.
The change sought by the US Department of Agriculture would curb broad-based categorical eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Broad-based categorical eligibility allows states to automatically qualify residents for SNAP if they are already enrolled in other aid programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, thus reducing administrative hurdles and costs.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated in a blog post published late last month—the day before President Donald Trump announced the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran—that gutting broad-based categorical eligibility would likely strip modest federal food aid from around 6 million people, including nearly 2 million children.
“The people losing access to food assistance from SNAP, school meals, and [the Women, Infants, and Children Program] would mainly be working families, older adults, and people with disabilities,” the think tank noted. “In other words, the change would primarily harm groups that federal and state policymakers from across the political spectrum have long sought to help: people who work but are living near poverty; older adults and people with disabilities with low, fixed incomes; and people trying to build modest savings in order to become more economically independent.”
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that restricting broad-based categorical eligibility would result in roughly $11 billion in savings over a 10-year period—or just over $1 billion a year.
The Trump administration is currently spending around $1 billion per day in US taxpayer money waging war on Iran—a price tag that would be enough to cover the daily costs of SNAP benefits for the more than 40 million Americans on the program.
Over just the first two days of the military onslaught, the Pentagon “burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions,” according to figures reported late Monday by the Washington Post.
“Americans can’t afford their groceries, they can’t afford their medicine, they can’t afford the cost of living, and yet we’re dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran,” US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a CNN appearance on Monday.
During Trump’s first White House term, his administration proposed a rule that would have curtailed states’ option to use broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, but the rule was never finalized and the Biden administration later rescinded it.
The Trump Agriculture Department revived the effort late last year, submitting a rule purportedly aimed at ensuring that “categorical eligibility is extended only to households that have sufficiently demonstrated eligibility.”
“The end result,” CBPP’s Katie Bergh recently warned, “will be more hunger and hardship.”
The Trump administration’s new push comes months after the president signed into law the largest SNAP cuts in US history—around $187 billion over the next decade.
Trump bragged about the cuts during his State of the Union address last month, declaring that his administration has “lifted 2.4 million Americans” off SNAP—a euphemistic description of kicking people off the critical anti-poverty program.
Last week, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee advanced a farm bill that would do nothing to mitigate the reverberating impacts of the Trump-GOP SNAP cuts.
“Instead of prioritizing the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans, the committee failed to reverse course and continued down a path that will strip food from the tables of children, veterans, caregivers, older adults, and people experiencing homelessness,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center.
"If the United States is at war, then Pete Hegseth is a war criminal. If the United States is not at war, then Pete Hegseth is a murderer."
By Brad Reed • Mar 5, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday was condemned for his boasts on Wednesday about sinking an Iranian military ship after allegations emerged that it was “defenseless” at the time it was torpedoed in international waters by a US submarine.
Military.com reported Thursday that the Iranian ship had been departing from a biennial multinational naval training exercise that it had been invited to participate in by the Indian government.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has so far remained silent on the US attack on the ship, but other politicians in India delivering sharp condemnations.
According to the Times of India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi tore into Modi for not speaking up after the US torpedoed a boat that his government had invited into its waters.
“The conflict has reached our backyard, with an Iranian warship sunk in the Indian Ocean,” Gandhi said. “Yet the PM has said nothing. At a moment like this, we need a steady hand at the wheel. Instead, India has a compromised PM who has surrendered our strategic autonomy.”
In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat.
“I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition,” he wrote. “It was defenseless... The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship’s presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind.”
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted that, in addition to striking what appears to have been a defenseless boat, the US also didn’t help rescue any of the shipwrecked men who were aboard the vessel.
“The Sri Lanka Navy was left to pull the dead bodies from the water,” Grim commented. “I am hard pressed to think of any other nation throughout history that would do something so cowardly and despicable. We are genuinely in a league of our own, and American media—mostly shrugging off the bombing of a girls school and acting as if carpet bombing Tehran is a normal military tactic—is deeply complicit.”
Author Bruno Maçães also pointed to the decision to leave the shipwrecked crew at sea as an act of historic depravity.
“Really quite extraordinary that the US bombed an Iranian ship and then left the surviving sailors to drown,” Maçães wrote. “There are many many accounts of the Nazis or Imperial Japan saving survivors at sea. I see we have now dropped below that level.”
Mohamad Safa, executive director of PVA Patriotic Vision, an international multilateral organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council, said that the US attack on the Iranian ship constituted either a war crime or straight-up murder.
“What Pete Hegseth ordered the military to do violates international law,” he wrote. “The Iranian ship was near Sri Lanka, in international waters outside the combat zone and on a training exercise. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are obligated to rescue the crew of a ship that you sink during war. Abandoned any survivors and leaving them to drown is illegal and a war crime.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.